4 ms·

> they're written by the same journalists who are focused on maximizing revenue for their own companies? That's a pretty huge accusation to casually throw out.

by untog 8y ago

> they're written by the same journalists who are focused on maximizing revenue for their own companies? That's a pretty huge accusation to casually throw out. Where is the actual evidence that a journalist writing an article critical of Facebook is doing so because they are focused on maximising revenue for their own company? Most journalists have nothing to do with the business side of their company, and this feels like a way to shut down absolutely any critical article without further analysis. Further to that, the two articles you cite have nothing to do with Facebook. I'd be interested to know what technical knowledge disproves the stories about Cambridge Analytica or genocide in Myanmar: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17151916/facebook-cambridge-analytica-trump-diagram https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17151916/f... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... I find the genocide case particularly interesting to talk about because it doesn't really require much technical knowledge to understand at all - the military set up fake FB profiles in order to push propaganda and promote ethnic cleansing. It's a question of Facebook's role in society and how proactive they should or should not be about moderating the content transmitted through their platform. I don't think there's a simple right or wrong answer, and it feels like a shame to dismiss the idea entirely because the article was written by a newspaper that technically competes with Facebook for ad impressions, or to dismiss it because of an assumption that the story is false because other false stories exist in the world.

ydnaclementine 8y ago
>Where is the actual evidence that a journalist writing an article critical of COMPANY is doing so because they are focused on maximising revenue for their own company? recent example is bloomberg and their china chip hacking (did that ever turn out to be true?) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... where the writers get compensated if their story moves stock prices https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...
- untog 8y ago
  Well, you removed the word "Facebook" from the quote there, and the Business Insider article itself states that the practice is extremely unusual in the industry. I'll agree that if Bloomberg was the sole reporter of a controversial story about Facebook that couldn't be proven I'd be very suspicious. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  First, I don't think moving the price of an OTCBB stock counts. Second, there is still the issue of accuracy, and that is even mentioned in the BI article. Bloomberg is not going to reward reporters for publishing bullshit, because it hurts the credibility of the terminal as a news source. Third, while I wasn't in news while I was there I'm not aware of such a policy existing, and can't find anything more recent than that 2013 article.
SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
The majority of people I've talked to about Cambridge Analytica think that Facebook just sent out a big pile of user data without asking anyone's permission. Which is a natural and reasonable interpretation of summaries like the one Vox provides in that article: > Facebook exposed data on up to 87 million Facebook users to a researcher who worked at Cambridge Analytica, which worked for the Trump campaign. What actually happened is that Facebook allowed a researcher to ask individual users to volunteer their data, and that researcher gave the data to Cambridge Analytica even though he promised he'd only use it for his research. There are ways Facebook could have prevented this, and I agree they should have - the UX implied a level of trust that Facebook wasn't properly vetting. But the popular narrative is almost entirely false.
- untog 8y ago
  But... Facebook did expose that data, by allowing a researcher to gather data on 87 million users with no actual restrictions on what he could do with that data. The root cause here is Facebook. It feels like arguing semantics to say the narrative is "almost entirely false" because Facebook exposed that data to an individual who later exposed it to Cambridge Analytica. Arguably Facebook exposed data on far more than 87 million Facebook users - it exposed data on every single user it has.
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    To be clear, the scenario was this. Facebook allowed people to voluntarily share their data with a large number of third-party apps, including one called "This Is Your Digital Life". This was a popular feature; lots of people wanted to share their data in order to get quiz results and such. The guy who created "This Is Your Digital Life" said the data was only for his academic research, but it was secretly for Cambridge Analytica. When the news reports that some company has exposed data, that normally means they set an S3 bucket to public or got hacked. I don't think many people would naturally describe the above scenario, where I voluntarily handed my Facebook data to a third party who lied about who they were, as "Facebook exposed your user data".
    - 8y ago
nkingsy 8y ago
My grandmother had her business destroyed by false newspaper stories paid for by a competitor. Till the day she died she wouldn’t touch a newspaper. I’ve never been the target of a journalist before, but many who have seem to find their perspective profoundly changed by the experience.
notacoward 8y ago
> Most journalists have nothing to do with the business side of their company Is that really true? It's the business side that pays their salaries, after all. Most people, in any business, are aware of where their employer's revenue comes from, who their competitors are, what threats they face, etc. This awareness is often heightened after being caught in a layoff, or working with others who have been. The news business has been pretty rough for a while so I'm pretty sure every working journalist has a pretty clear idea about these things. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy here, and inferring one is a bit of a strawman. All that's necessary is plain old human cognitive bias. Availability bias: journalists are hyper-aware of Facebook because of how it relates to their lives. Confirmation bias: most journalists are predisposed to think ill of Facebook. These effects become even stronger when the journalists are all validating and reinforcing each other when they give negative stories about Facebook more prominence than they rationally deserve. Such stories are routinely repeated and exaggerated far more than other objectively similar stories that don't play into the same biases - not because of specific intent but just because journalists are humans. Facebook is not the first company that has gone from media darling to media scapegoat. It won't be the last. Look at the extremely positive and extremely negative stories about any of Elon Musk's ventures. Or any celebrity. Anybody who denies that journalists play favorites isn't being very realistic.

by untog 8y ago

ydnaclementine 8y ago

>Where is the actual evidence that a journalist writing an article critical of COMPANY is doing so because they are focused on maximising revenue for their own company? recent example is bloomberg and their china chip hacking (did that ever turn out to be true?) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h... where the writers get compensated if their story moves stock prices https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...

untog 8y ago
Well, you removed the word "Facebook" from the quote there, and the Business Insider article itself states that the practice is extremely unusual in the industry. I'll agree that if Bloomberg was the sole reporter of a controversial story about Facebook that couldn't be proven I'd be very suspicious. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened.
vonmoltke 8y ago
First, I don't think moving the price of an OTCBB stock counts. Second, there is still the issue of accuracy, and that is even mentioned in the BI article. Bloomberg is not going to reward reporters for publishing bullshit, because it hurts the credibility of the terminal as a news source. Third, while I wasn't in news while I was there I'm not aware of such a policy existing, and can't find anything more recent than that 2013 article.

SpicyLemonZest 8y ago

The majority of people I've talked to about Cambridge Analytica think that Facebook just sent out a big pile of user data without asking anyone's permission. Which is a natural and reasonable interpretation of summaries like the one Vox provides in that article: > Facebook exposed data on up to 87 million Facebook users to a researcher who worked at Cambridge Analytica, which worked for the Trump campaign. What actually happened is that Facebook allowed a researcher to ask individual users to volunteer their data, and that researcher gave the data to Cambridge Analytica even though he promised he'd only use it for his research. There are ways Facebook could have prevented this, and I agree they should have - the UX implied a level of trust that Facebook wasn't properly vetting. But the popular narrative is almost entirely false.

untog 8y ago
But... Facebook did expose that data, by allowing a researcher to gather data on 87 million users with no actual restrictions on what he could do with that data. The root cause here is Facebook. It feels like arguing semantics to say the narrative is "almost entirely false" because Facebook exposed that data to an individual who later exposed it to Cambridge Analytica. Arguably Facebook exposed data on far more than 87 million Facebook users - it exposed data on every single user it has.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  To be clear, the scenario was this. Facebook allowed people to voluntarily share their data with a large number of third-party apps, including one called "This Is Your Digital Life". This was a popular feature; lots of people wanted to share their data in order to get quiz results and such. The guy who created "This Is Your Digital Life" said the data was only for his academic research, but it was secretly for Cambridge Analytica. When the news reports that some company has exposed data, that normally means they set an S3 bucket to public or got hacked. I don't think many people would naturally describe the above scenario, where I voluntarily handed my Facebook data to a third party who lied about who they were, as "Facebook exposed your user data".
  - 8y ago

nkingsy 8y ago

My grandmother had her business destroyed by false newspaper stories paid for by a competitor. Till the day she died she wouldn’t touch a newspaper. I’ve never been the target of a journalist before, but many who have seem to find their perspective profoundly changed by the experience.

notacoward 8y ago

> Most journalists have nothing to do with the business side of their company Is that really true? It's the business side that pays their salaries, after all. Most people, in any business, are aware of where their employer's revenue comes from, who their competitors are, what threats they face, etc. This awareness is often heightened after being caught in a layoff, or working with others who have been. The news business has been pretty rough for a while so I'm pretty sure every working journalist has a pretty clear idea about these things. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy here, and inferring one is a bit of a strawman. All that's necessary is plain old human cognitive bias. Availability bias: journalists are hyper-aware of Facebook because of how it relates to their lives. Confirmation bias: most journalists are predisposed to think ill of Facebook. These effects become even stronger when the journalists are all validating and reinforcing each other when they give negative stories about Facebook more prominence than they rationally deserve. Such stories are routinely repeated and exaggerated far more than other objectively similar stories that don't play into the same biases - not because of specific intent but just because journalists are humans. Facebook is not the first company that has gone from media darling to media scapegoat. It won't be the last. Look at the extremely positive and extremely negative stories about any of Elon Musk's ventures. Or any celebrity. Anybody who denies that journalists play favorites isn't being very realistic.