> I am asking, where was the criticism early on? Why was Facebook a darling of the media for so long, before it all changed? I don't think there is a big gran

> I am asking, where was the criticism early on? Why was Facebook a darling of the media for so long, before it all changed? I don't think there is a big grand plan behind the arc in the coverage. In the early days of these companies, the iconoclast story was simply easier to write. Also, you have to know how journalists work. Outside of opinion pieces and editorials, a journalist needs preferably two sources to make a claim in a news piece. In the early days, there simply were fewer critics of facebook or Uber, and certainly the critics were less organized, so they didn't get much coverage. But, I bet if you look back to the first days of facebook, that you will find some negative coverage, but at that time it would have appeared speculative, and would have been a minority voice. Also, it's right there in the word: "news". Somebody getting rich off a new idea is news. Just like cavemen would have considered it news that you can eat the orange berries if you cook them first. Novel risks are also a staple of news. So perhaps the arc went from 'Man gets rich with crazy new idea', to 'People using new thing face a novel risk' (surveillance, loss of privacy).