10 ms·

“It’s otherwise rational, sane people who’re in Mark’s orbit spouting full-blown anti-media rhetoric, saying that the press is ganging up on Facebook,” Well, t

“It’s otherwise rational, sane people who’re in Mark’s orbit spouting full-blown anti-media rhetoric, saying that the press is ganging up on Facebook,” Well, the press probably is ganging up on Facebook. That's what the press does. They are sharks. When they smell blood (a story), they move in. Breaking new stories and scooping the other guys is what they live for. Welcome to the world outside the bubble.

jklinger410 8y ago
You could flip this around and also say that otherwise rational, sane people are irrationally defending a corrupt, click-bait/profit driven media.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Yes, that's an obvious move. Binary thinking usually does result in an increase in hyperbolic statements on both sides. There might be better moves to make, though.
black6 8y ago
It’s not just a story they smell, its $40B in advertising the traditional media is losing to Facebook in addition to people using FB as a news source — once the domain print, radio, and TV.
WestCoastJustin 8y ago
Also note, "Facebook hired PR firm that wrote negative articles about rivals: NYT" [1]. Really makes you wonder how much news is actually corporate propaganda. Reminds me of pg's article called, The Submarine [2]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/facebook-hired-pr-firm-that-wrote-negative-articles-about-rivals-nyt.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/facebook-hired-pr-firm-that-... [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- cirgue 8y ago
  There’s no magical one-asshole-at-a-time rule.
  - panarky 8y ago
    No, but only a really special kind of asshole can complain about media reports that happen to be true, while simultaneously acting as the primary vector for spreading and amplifying false, hateful and vile disinformation.
- ilamont 8y ago
  A lot. Many non-"hard news" articles are spawned by PR agencies or PR arms of large companies through relationships with journalists or non-stop pitching of ideas to reporters and editors. They may be disguised as a human interest story, profile, or something else lighthearted. The Sunday New York Times is filled with them. They're not hard to spot, though. Some are obvious (a profile of celebrity X, who happens to be releasing a new movie). A casual mention of BigCo or a BigCo product is another giveaway. Example: the sudden flurry of articles about the ISS robot this week. Oh, look, it's powered by Watson! https://www.google.com/search?q=iss+robot+watson& https://www.google.com/search?q=iss+robot+watson&
- kirsebaer 8y ago
  See the classic 1928 short book Propaganda by Edward Bernays, early public relations specialist. Bernays estimates around 80% (or around there, I don't remember) of news articles are placed by PR agents. And he explains how and why they do this. http://b-ok.cc/book/814789/06bb6e http://b-ok.cc/book/814789/06bb6e
  - oceanghost 8y ago
    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda
dcole2929 8y ago
Maybe I'm reading too much into your tone here, but this seems a pretty disingenuous take, and I'm disappointed it's the top comment. You're making it seem like the press is circling Facebook out of some undue desire to turn non stories into breaking news but that's far from the truth. This isn't TMZ following around a philandering star. There is, as you so aptly put, blood in the water here, because when you're a company with the size and reach of Facebook, what you do MATTERS. Facebook counts it's user base in the billions, it holds personally identifying information on even more than that. It arguably has the influence to swing elections and shape public discourse (you can debate how much but at this point it's pretty apparent that it has a measurable effect). It's similar to how politicians are public figures simply by nature of their position. When you hold that much power and influence, your actions, good or bad, are and should be a matter of public record. And it has always been the press' job to hold powerful figures and companies accountable to the public. Facebook has been, especially over the past few years, at best an amoral actor. That has to be news. It has to be. Where ever you fall on the social economic political spectrum, it has to be news worthy when Facebook does something that implies they are trying to manipulate or evade accountability because more so than anyone else that is something we cannot allow the powerful (individual or organization) to do.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  I'm no Facebook fan, but the chronology seems remarkable here. Facebook were irritating Rupert Murdoch, and traditional media in general, by refusing to pay fees for articles that appeared in people's feeds. About a month before everybody started running hit-pieces on Facebook, the negotiations broke down, with Facebook telling the news guys to go take a hike. Suddenly, everybody is absolutely horrified by the fact that Facebook is selling people's data. Despite the fact that it's always been their explicit business model. Facebook is absolutely a horrible idea, but the news are hardly being impartial. It's incumbent publishers trying to knock out a new rival, using their reputation and power to get the newcomer dragged through the mud by politicians. Nobody should be surprised that the most news-sensitive, not the most privacy-sensitive governments were the ones to attack Facebook most directly. The UK, for instance, is perhaps the most invasive surveillance state west of China - and yet, they've been leading the charge against Facebook. Despite the fact that the same government has floated ideas about monetizing government data about its own citizens!
makomk 8y ago
Yup. For example, remember how the New York Times wrote an entire article pretending that Facebook letting people view their friends' info on their smartphones using manufacturer-provided apps running on those phones was actually giving those companies access to that data? How they argued, with a straight face, that it was dishonest and an attack on privacy for Facebook to not make the setting which kept your data out of the hands of companies like Cambridge Analytica also force all your friends to install their app in order to stay in touch with you? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-device-partnerships-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-devic... I actually had to narrow down my search in order to find this article in the haystack of every other media outlet on the entire planet breathlessly repeating the exact same claims. (The press always do this, from what I can tell. They're so absolutely confident of their righteousness that anyone who doesn't also believe in it must be deluded, or irrational, or part of a cult, or...)
- mossplix 8y ago
  So what was false in the reporting? Do you have proof to the contrary?
  - makomk 8y ago
    The New York Times claimed that Facebook was sharing private data with Huawei, "a telecommunications equipment company that has been flagged by American intelligence officials as a national security threat", when in actual fact the data was shared with the friends those people had chosen to share the data with, via the smartphones in those friends' pockets. Though I actually meant to link to the previous article in the series, which sets out the New York Times' astounding spin more clearly - this is the one where they claim that it was somehow an attack on user privacy to not make the setting which stopped companies like Cambridge Analytica getting all your data also force all your friends to install the official Facebook app to interact with you: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa... Like, in one part of the article they literally had network logs of their reporter's Blackberry device, after he logged into Facebook on it, pulling down information from Facebook which he was authorised to access directly to that device - and they presented this as though it was proof that Facebook were being incredibly dishonest in not treating it as though they were giving Blackberry, a third party, access to all that incredibly sensitive personal data. They took advantage of the fact that most people are too technically clueless to understand that Blackberry in actual fact didn't have that data in any way, shape or form, that it never left the pocket of the person who was granted access to it and they knew it.
travisoneill1 8y ago
> otherwise rational, sane people Calling people crazy for disagreeing is a sure sign of being trapped in an echo chamber. This happens a lot when a politician breaks ranks with their party. You start to see the "suddenly <obviously sane person> went crazy" narrative.
debt 8y ago
Well when the platform you created essentially destroyed the free press, that'll likely be their first target.
blhack 8y ago
You know how people have been warning us about unrestrained AI? We already have it, and "the press" is an example of one (so is facebook). The press is a gestault that can ultimately take actions beyond what any individual component is capable of taking. Facebook is a threat to the press, and of course it is working to protect itself. The problem was when we gave the press access to the internet. It was capable of acting more quickly than it was before.
codedokode 8y ago
So Facebook finds it normal to secretly collect information about users' calls and tons of other information but doesn't like when someone publishes information about their shady deeds. Press is not doing even a thousandth part of what Facebook has done to others.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 8y ago
It isn't just the next story the media is after. They are in the exact same business as facebook now. And any form of leverage might come in handy. The topic or integrity of stories isn't even that important. The focus is engagement and attention.
Throvvaw4y 8y ago
It's funny to me because in my experience, the media is who popularized the use of Facebook and Twitter in my country (Greece). No one cared about MySpace or Hi5 (which was at least as popular as FB at the time the TV programs started advertising FB).

jklinger410 8y ago

You could flip this around and also say that otherwise rational, sane people are irrationally defending a corrupt, click-bait/profit driven media.

skybrian 8y ago
Yes, that's an obvious move. Binary thinking usually does result in an increase in hyperbolic statements on both sides. There might be better moves to make, though.

black6 8y ago

It’s not just a story they smell, its $40B in advertising the traditional media is losing to Facebook in addition to people using FB as a news source — once the domain print, radio, and TV.

WestCoastJustin 8y ago

Also note, "Facebook hired PR firm that wrote negative articles about rivals: NYT" [1]. Really makes you wonder how much news is actually corporate propaganda. Reminds me of pg's article called, The Submarine [2]. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/facebook-hired-pr-firm-that-wrote-negative-articles-about-rivals-nyt.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/facebook-hired-pr-firm-that-... [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

cirgue 8y ago
There’s no magical one-asshole-at-a-time rule.
- panarky 8y ago
  No, but only a really special kind of asshole can complain about media reports that happen to be true, while simultaneously acting as the primary vector for spreading and amplifying false, hateful and vile disinformation.
ilamont 8y ago
A lot. Many non-"hard news" articles are spawned by PR agencies or PR arms of large companies through relationships with journalists or non-stop pitching of ideas to reporters and editors. They may be disguised as a human interest story, profile, or something else lighthearted. The Sunday New York Times is filled with them. They're not hard to spot, though. Some are obvious (a profile of celebrity X, who happens to be releasing a new movie). A casual mention of BigCo or a BigCo product is another giveaway. Example: the sudden flurry of articles about the ISS robot this week. Oh, look, it's powered by Watson! https://www.google.com/search?q=iss+robot+watson& https://www.google.com/search?q=iss+robot+watson&
kirsebaer 8y ago
See the classic 1928 short book Propaganda by Edward Bernays, early public relations specialist. Bernays estimates around 80% (or around there, I don't remember) of news articles are placed by PR agents. And he explains how and why they do this. http://b-ok.cc/book/814789/06bb6e http://b-ok.cc/book/814789/06bb6e
- oceanghost 8y ago
  “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda

dcole2929 8y ago

Maybe I'm reading too much into your tone here, but this seems a pretty disingenuous take, and I'm disappointed it's the top comment. You're making it seem like the press is circling Facebook out of some undue desire to turn non stories into breaking news but that's far from the truth. This isn't TMZ following around a philandering star. There is, as you so aptly put, blood in the water here, because when you're a company with the size and reach of Facebook, what you do MATTERS. Facebook counts it's user base in the billions, it holds personally identifying information on even more than that. It arguably has the influence to swing elections and shape public discourse (you can debate how much but at this point it's pretty apparent that it has a measurable effect). It's similar to how politicians are public figures simply by nature of their position. When you hold that much power and influence, your actions, good or bad, are and should be a matter of public record. And it has always been the press' job to hold powerful figures and companies accountable to the public. Facebook has been, especially over the past few years, at best an amoral actor. That has to be news. It has to be. Where ever you fall on the social economic political spectrum, it has to be news worthy when Facebook does something that implies they are trying to manipulate or evade accountability because more so than anyone else that is something we cannot allow the powerful (individual or organization) to do.

pasabagi 8y ago
I'm no Facebook fan, but the chronology seems remarkable here. Facebook were irritating Rupert Murdoch, and traditional media in general, by refusing to pay fees for articles that appeared in people's feeds. About a month before everybody started running hit-pieces on Facebook, the negotiations broke down, with Facebook telling the news guys to go take a hike. Suddenly, everybody is absolutely horrified by the fact that Facebook is selling people's data. Despite the fact that it's always been their explicit business model. Facebook is absolutely a horrible idea, but the news are hardly being impartial. It's incumbent publishers trying to knock out a new rival, using their reputation and power to get the newcomer dragged through the mud by politicians. Nobody should be surprised that the most news-sensitive, not the most privacy-sensitive governments were the ones to attack Facebook most directly. The UK, for instance, is perhaps the most invasive surveillance state west of China - and yet, they've been leading the charge against Facebook. Despite the fact that the same government has floated ideas about monetizing government data about its own citizens!

makomk 8y ago

Yup. For example, remember how the New York Times wrote an entire article pretending that Facebook letting people view their friends' info on their smartphones using manufacturer-provided apps running on those phones was actually giving those companies access to that data? How they argued, with a straight face, that it was dishonest and an attack on privacy for Facebook to not make the setting which kept your data out of the hands of companies like Cambridge Analytica also force all your friends to install their app in order to stay in touch with you? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-device-partnerships-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-devic... I actually had to narrow down my search in order to find this article in the haystack of every other media outlet on the entire planet breathlessly repeating the exact same claims. (The press always do this, from what I can tell. They're so absolutely confident of their righteousness that anyone who doesn't also believe in it must be deluded, or irrational, or part of a cult, or...)

mossplix 8y ago
So what was false in the reporting? Do you have proof to the contrary?
- makomk 8y ago
  The New York Times claimed that Facebook was sharing private data with Huawei, "a telecommunications equipment company that has been flagged by American intelligence officials as a national security threat", when in actual fact the data was shared with the friends those people had chosen to share the data with, via the smartphones in those friends' pockets. Though I actually meant to link to the previous article in the series, which sets out the New York Times' astounding spin more clearly - this is the one where they claim that it was somehow an attack on user privacy to not make the setting which stopped companies like Cambridge Analytica getting all your data also force all your friends to install the official Facebook app to interact with you: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa... Like, in one part of the article they literally had network logs of their reporter's Blackberry device, after he logged into Facebook on it, pulling down information from Facebook which he was authorised to access directly to that device - and they presented this as though it was proof that Facebook were being incredibly dishonest in not treating it as though they were giving Blackberry, a third party, access to all that incredibly sensitive personal data. They took advantage of the fact that most people are too technically clueless to understand that Blackberry in actual fact didn't have that data in any way, shape or form, that it never left the pocket of the person who was granted access to it and they knew it.

travisoneill1 8y ago

> otherwise rational, sane people Calling people crazy for disagreeing is a sure sign of being trapped in an echo chamber. This happens a lot when a politician breaks ranks with their party. You start to see the "suddenly <obviously sane person> went crazy" narrative.

debt 8y ago

Well when the platform you created essentially destroyed the free press, that'll likely be their first target.

blhack 8y ago

You know how people have been warning us about unrestrained AI? We already have it, and "the press" is an example of one (so is facebook). The press is a gestault that can ultimately take actions beyond what any individual component is capable of taking. Facebook is a threat to the press, and of course it is working to protect itself. The problem was when we gave the press access to the internet. It was capable of acting more quickly than it was before.

codedokode 8y ago

So Facebook finds it normal to secretly collect information about users' calls and tons of other information but doesn't like when someone publishes information about their shady deeds. Press is not doing even a thousandth part of what Facebook has done to others.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

raxxorrax 8y ago

It isn't just the next story the media is after. They are in the exact same business as facebook now. And any form of leverage might come in handy. The topic or integrity of stories isn't even that important. The focus is engagement and attention.

Throvvaw4y 8y ago

It's funny to me because in my experience, the media is who popularized the use of Facebook and Twitter in my country (Greece). No one cared about MySpace or Hi5 (which was at least as popular as FB at the time the TV programs started advertising FB).