4 ms·

>That pro-Facebook propaganda by their PR head is even deemed worthy of publishing (in NYTimes of all places!) is frankly a disappointment. Ehh this seems comp

>That pro-Facebook propaganda by their PR head is even deemed worthy of publishing (in NYTimes of all places!) is frankly a disappointment. Ehh this seems completely appropriate to me. NYT often publishes controversial OpEds (including from Putin in the past). This seems well in line with the mandate of established media outlets.

livueta 8y ago
Moreso, given that it's a direct response to a previously-published op-ed arguing the opposite side: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hugh... I agree that this response is drivel, but not affording FB the opportunity to respond in kind smacks of bias. If the NYT had really sacrificed all objectivity in their campaign against their main rival for eyeballs, they would simply have not published this and allowed their readership to assume that the anti-FB piece had gone unanswered. In this case the NYT is acting as a somewhat neutral stage for a public debate, a role which I think is important when it's very easy for both sides to talk past each other to different audiences. Think for a minute on whether you'd have read this rebuttal if it were posted on FB, instead of in the same medium as the argument it is responding to. Would you, as a presumed Facebook detector, have even read it then? I probably wouldn't have.