7 ms·

There is an intensive negative media campaign against Facebook lately, rightful or not.

by tzfld 8y ago

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Facebook has perpetrated a series of negative actions successively for a long time. A large number of people are negatively affected by the ramifications of these bad actions. The reporting of these actions therefore seems like responsible journalism just calling it like they see it, reporting on the serial perpetrator of meaningful bad actions. Given this, it seems disingenuous and even harmful to attribute the negativity side of it to the “media” or suggest that the coordination and timing of the stories is a media “campaign.” Nobody denies that the media can coordinate like this and probably has in the past and will again. However, there is no need to reach for conspiracy theories when it comes to negative reporting on Facebook. Facebook is negative. Facebook has perpetrated a serial campaign of negative behaviors. The media in this case are merely just reporting that. Any negativity is down to Facebook itself for acting negatively, not down to the media.
- lithos 8y ago
  The media doesn't "need" to coordinate on Facebook. They just need to do their job. Reporters when doing an interest story will as part of their job research further into the subject. Facebook just happens to have a really long trail of SV mentality of move fast and deal with the consequences later. It's Facebook's fault for making themselves really interesting before cleaning themselves. Can you really blame reporters doing their job, researching an interesting subject, and one that has so much dirt that it's easy to do your job.
janzij 8y ago
Glad that I'm not the only one noticing it. Last time it was Uber. Now they moved on to Facebook. Uber didn't change much, and so won't Facebook, because the media will eventually pick another target (I wonder which, I'm guessing Google) which makes people click their links. They don't really care about reporting or about making things right, they just need a dead horse to beat. I am happy the power of the media dwindles year after year, they should have no right to do something like this against certain people or companies they don't like. They are bullies, that's all they are.
- lithos 8y ago
  Facebook has had a long period of time where they were boring to the media. Letting them make many mistakes, mostly SV style move fast deal with the consequences later style. Then they got caught doing (or not) interesting things. Meaning any competent reporter will find LOTS if SV style mistakes when researching the original story. This is just what happens to anyone/thing that leaves a trail of interesting-ness after they appear in the media the first time. Do you really expect reporters to not report on things they find, or maybe you're asking reporters to be worse at research.
- wffurr 8y ago
  Uber did change substantially. Kalanick was forced out. Adults run the company now hence fewer scandals to report on. Self driving car division is dead in the water. They will end up licensing tech and competing with Waymo.
- misiti3780 8y ago
  Uber has seen huge changes - they lost their CEO and shut down their self driving truck division - also the head of the lidar technology from the otto acquisition was fired. there are probably many more things i cant think of
- mholmes680 8y ago
  Google seemed to have some trouble recently when they didnt show up to congress... but then it just disappeared. Facebook seems to have tried to own up to it, and its backfiring... Google must have just paid off everyone with their lobbying powerhouse to make it go quiet.
lithos 8y ago
Even if there wasn't. The news would still report on this (and their other mistakes) and it would still be mostly negative.
matt4077 8y ago
Yeah. Just like “the media” has a long-standing campaign against hurricanes and earthquakes. It’s really getting tiresome and boring by now. I suspect it’s George Soros and his investment in better-future-futures driving this relentless onslaught on perfectly normal natural catastrophes and corporate wrongdoing.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
How is reporting on British MP's actions regarding Facebook an "intensive negative media campaign"? Is this not actually happening or something?
dexen 8y ago
The negative campaign started when the media learned of Facebook selling data to Trump's presidential campaign via Cambridge Analytica. It was more or less the same [edit: data / service] Facebook provided to Obama's both campaigns, except selling to Obama was seen as "supporting progressive cause" and "modern way of reaching out to the young voters", while selling to Trump was deemed a "terrible betrayal" and "hacking the democracy"; the press' opinion on Facebook turned from "that dependably progressive company we can get mutual support from" to "that unpredictable hired gun that's willing to work with anybody bad". Think of it; nothing else has changed. The press, and people in general, were well aware for years that Facebook is collecting, processing, and selling reams upon reams of user data. It was all glossed over as long as it was supporting the good cause. Now it's bemoaned to no end. It doesn't help that the press has natural adversarial relationship with Facebook just as much as with Google and other similar, due to the platforms being both major news channel (direct competitor), while at the same time the major source of web traffic to the news' websites, thus ad revenue.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  > except selling to Obama was seen as "supporting progressive cause" I'm pretty sure Obama didn't use a Russian troll farm during his campaigns.
  - nkkollaw 8y ago
    > I'm pretty sure Obama didn't use a Russian troll farm during his campaigns. Why do you guys keep saying that, if it's all but speculation? You're stating that as a fact.
  - dexen 8y ago
    We are discussing the press' behavior in this thread. Whataboutism ("but the other guy did something bad?") doesn't help us with understanding why journalists switched from tacitly ignoring Facebook's various transgressions to intensely grilling them from several angles at the same time. In the post above I posit that's due to journalists at first assuming they are on the same team, bound by shared worldview, only to learn that Facebook is loyal to the profit first and foremost, and over any ideology. Choice examples: - the OP article; used to be "Facebook helps populist freedom movements a'la Arab Spring"; now is "Facebook helps populist violence a'la Gilets Jaunes" - all the problems with privacy - being faux-feminist (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/facebook-s-sheryl-sandberg-is-not-a-feminist-icon-this-is-why-1.2808764 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/facebook-s-sheryl-sandber...) - catering to far-right (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/17/facebook-protects-far-right-activists-even-after-rule-breaches-dispatches-c4 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/17/facebook-...) - hosting "fake news" (https://www.fastcompany.com/90203347/facebook-can-never-stop-fake-news-and-still-be-facebook https://www.fastcompany.com/90203347/facebook-can-never-stop...)
owenwil 8y ago
It isn't a media campaign, it's that the company did countless shitty things, and they're coming to light over time. It's important, not a campaign.
odiroot 8y ago
Someone is trying short FB big.
jseliger 8y ago
Facebook has become a scapegoat: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebook-crisis-or-media-narrative-about-facebook-crisis/ https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo... for a media system that is unable to cope with its role in the 2016 election. Once a company (or individual) becomes a media target, the media generates its own news about the company. At the same time, most media companies cannot admit this dynamic even if they understand it (they don't).
- all2 8y ago
  Its the editor's and producer's job to make sure garbage like this doesn't happen. I lean on my (very little) experience with NPR. Things driven by advertising seem to become caricatures of themselves... My wife an I watched this happen to Food Network in the early 2010's. People like Paula Dean, who acted normally, began to have deeper accents, brighter eyes, more ridiculous 'Southern' turns of phrase. And it wasn't just her. It happened to other personalities as well. In fact, I think that people have pointed out this phenomena on YouTube, as well (people conforming to some 'norm' that gets them the most cash).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
danso 8y ago
The NYT story likely took months to fully investigate. The current UK hearings are a result of last March's investigations into Cambridge Analytica. You believe that the UK hearings should just be ignored?
parthdesai 8y ago
I don't have fb app or messenger installed, but i definitely take a lot things that are said about fb in media with a grain of salt. Keep in a lot of these media houses are losing their clicks to fb. I know of people who actually get their news through fb newsfeed...
pavelrub 8y ago
Is every collection of negative or positive stories about X, in close proximity to each other, is always a "media campaign" governed by some hidden interests? This is the same kind of logic as thinking that everything some CEO does is a "marketing ploy", or that every terrorist attack is a false flag operation.
parliament32 8y ago
It's about time. FB has been shady as shit for an awfully long time, but we're finally in a place where you can publish FB-negative articles and actually get views / no backlash. I don't think much has changed from FB's behaviour, nor is there a coordinated media campaign against them. Rather, the general public is warming up to the idea that FB might not be all that great, which opens a window for the media to publish stories about FB in a negative light.

There is an intensive negative media campaign against Facebook lately, rightful or not.

by tzfld 8y ago

There is an intensive negative media campaign against Facebook lately, rightful or not.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Facebook has perpetrated a series of negative actions successively for a long time. A large number of people are negatively affected by the ramifications of these bad actions. The reporting of these actions therefore seems like responsible journalism just calling it like they see it, reporting on the serial perpetrator of meaningful bad actions. Given this, it seems disingenuous and even harmful to attribute the negativity side of it to the “media” or suggest that the coordination and timing of the stories is a media “campaign.” Nobody denies that the media can coordinate like this and probably has in the past and will again. However, there is no need to reach for conspiracy theories when it comes to negative reporting on Facebook. Facebook is negative. Facebook has perpetrated a serial campaign of negative behaviors. The media in this case are merely just reporting that. Any negativity is down to Facebook itself for acting negatively, not down to the media.

lithos 8y ago
The media doesn't "need" to coordinate on Facebook. They just need to do their job. Reporters when doing an interest story will as part of their job research further into the subject. Facebook just happens to have a really long trail of SV mentality of move fast and deal with the consequences later. It's Facebook's fault for making themselves really interesting before cleaning themselves. Can you really blame reporters doing their job, researching an interesting subject, and one that has so much dirt that it's easy to do your job.

janzij 8y ago

Glad that I'm not the only one noticing it. Last time it was Uber. Now they moved on to Facebook. Uber didn't change much, and so won't Facebook, because the media will eventually pick another target (I wonder which, I'm guessing Google) which makes people click their links. They don't really care about reporting or about making things right, they just need a dead horse to beat. I am happy the power of the media dwindles year after year, they should have no right to do something like this against certain people or companies they don't like. They are bullies, that's all they are.

lithos 8y ago
Facebook has had a long period of time where they were boring to the media. Letting them make many mistakes, mostly SV style move fast deal with the consequences later style. Then they got caught doing (or not) interesting things. Meaning any competent reporter will find LOTS if SV style mistakes when researching the original story. This is just what happens to anyone/thing that leaves a trail of interesting-ness after they appear in the media the first time. Do you really expect reporters to not report on things they find, or maybe you're asking reporters to be worse at research.
wffurr 8y ago
Uber did change substantially. Kalanick was forced out. Adults run the company now hence fewer scandals to report on. Self driving car division is dead in the water. They will end up licensing tech and competing with Waymo.
misiti3780 8y ago
Uber has seen huge changes - they lost their CEO and shut down their self driving truck division - also the head of the lidar technology from the otto acquisition was fired. there are probably many more things i cant think of
mholmes680 8y ago
Google seemed to have some trouble recently when they didnt show up to congress... but then it just disappeared. Facebook seems to have tried to own up to it, and its backfiring... Google must have just paid off everyone with their lobbying powerhouse to make it go quiet.

lithos 8y ago

Even if there wasn't. The news would still report on this (and their other mistakes) and it would still be mostly negative.

matt4077 8y ago

Yeah. Just like “the media” has a long-standing campaign against hurricanes and earthquakes. It’s really getting tiresome and boring by now. I suspect it’s George Soros and his investment in better-future-futures driving this relentless onslaught on perfectly normal natural catastrophes and corporate wrongdoing.

Dirlewanger 8y ago

How is reporting on British MP's actions regarding Facebook an "intensive negative media campaign"? Is this not actually happening or something?

dexen 8y ago

The negative campaign started when the media learned of Facebook selling data to Trump's presidential campaign via Cambridge Analytica. It was more or less the same [edit: data / service] Facebook provided to Obama's both campaigns, except selling to Obama was seen as "supporting progressive cause" and "modern way of reaching out to the young voters", while selling to Trump was deemed a "terrible betrayal" and "hacking the democracy"; the press' opinion on Facebook turned from "that dependably progressive company we can get mutual support from" to "that unpredictable hired gun that's willing to work with anybody bad". Think of it; nothing else has changed. The press, and people in general, were well aware for years that Facebook is collecting, processing, and selling reams upon reams of user data. It was all glossed over as long as it was supporting the good cause. Now it's bemoaned to no end. It doesn't help that the press has natural adversarial relationship with Facebook just as much as with Google and other similar, due to the platforms being both major news channel (direct competitor), while at the same time the major source of web traffic to the news' websites, thus ad revenue.

gerbilly 8y ago
> except selling to Obama was seen as "supporting progressive cause" I'm pretty sure Obama didn't use a Russian troll farm during his campaigns.
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  > I'm pretty sure Obama didn't use a Russian troll farm during his campaigns. Why do you guys keep saying that, if it's all but speculation? You're stating that as a fact.
- dexen 8y ago
  We are discussing the press' behavior in this thread. Whataboutism ("but the other guy did something bad?") doesn't help us with understanding why journalists switched from tacitly ignoring Facebook's various transgressions to intensely grilling them from several angles at the same time. In the post above I posit that's due to journalists at first assuming they are on the same team, bound by shared worldview, only to learn that Facebook is loyal to the profit first and foremost, and over any ideology. Choice examples: - the OP article; used to be "Facebook helps populist freedom movements a'la Arab Spring"; now is "Facebook helps populist violence a'la Gilets Jaunes" - all the problems with privacy - being faux-feminist (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/facebook-s-sheryl-sandberg-is-not-a-feminist-icon-this-is-why-1.2808764 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/facebook-s-sheryl-sandber...) - catering to far-right (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/17/facebook-protects-far-right-activists-even-after-rule-breaches-dispatches-c4 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/17/facebook-...) - hosting "fake news" (https://www.fastcompany.com/90203347/facebook-can-never-stop-fake-news-and-still-be-facebook https://www.fastcompany.com/90203347/facebook-can-never-stop...)

owenwil 8y ago

It isn't a media campaign, it's that the company did countless shitty things, and they're coming to light over time. It's important, not a campaign.

odiroot 8y ago

Someone is trying short FB big.

jseliger 8y ago

Facebook has become a scapegoat: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebook-crisis-or-media-narrative-about-facebook-crisis/ https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo... for a media system that is unable to cope with its role in the 2016 election. Once a company (or individual) becomes a media target, the media generates its own news about the company. At the same time, most media companies cannot admit this dynamic even if they understand it (they don't).

all2 8y ago
Its the editor's and producer's job to make sure garbage like this doesn't happen. I lean on my (very little) experience with NPR. Things driven by advertising seem to become caricatures of themselves... My wife an I watched this happen to Food Network in the early 2010's. People like Paula Dean, who acted normally, began to have deeper accents, brighter eyes, more ridiculous 'Southern' turns of phrase. And it wasn't just her. It happened to other personalities as well. In fact, I think that people have pointed out this phenomena on YouTube, as well (people conforming to some 'norm' that gets them the most cash).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

danso 8y ago

The NYT story likely took months to fully investigate. The current UK hearings are a result of last March's investigations into Cambridge Analytica. You believe that the UK hearings should just be ignored?

parthdesai 8y ago

I don't have fb app or messenger installed, but i definitely take a lot things that are said about fb in media with a grain of salt. Keep in a lot of these media houses are losing their clicks to fb. I know of people who actually get their news through fb newsfeed...

pavelrub 8y ago

Is every collection of negative or positive stories about X, in close proximity to each other, is always a "media campaign" governed by some hidden interests? This is the same kind of logic as thinking that everything some CEO does is a "marketing ploy", or that every terrorist attack is a false flag operation.

parliament32 8y ago

It's about time. FB has been shady as shit for an awfully long time, but we're finally in a place where you can publish FB-negative articles and actually get views / no backlash. I don't think much has changed from FB's behaviour, nor is there a coordinated media campaign against them. Rather, the general public is warming up to the idea that FB might not be all that great, which opens a window for the media to publish stories about FB in a negative light.