3 ms·

EDIT: I removed a misquote from this comment after another user pointed out my mistake. There do appear to be a few legitimate concerns worth investigating, bu

EDIT: I removed a misquote from this comment after another user pointed out my mistake. There do appear to be a few legitimate concerns worth investigating, but it’s starting to feel like the media has sensed that Facebook is the villain du jour and they’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. These stories seem to dance around the subject of what exactly Facebook did, but instead focus on the existence of a whistleblower. If there was a story here, I feel like they’re working hard on overplaying their hand at the risk of losing the audience once the initial frenzy wears off. That’s fine for media companies who can move on to the next bogeyman, but it’s not going to help the underlying cause.

paxys 5y ago
> Facebook issued a lengthy statement from director of policy communications Lena Pietsch titled "Missing Facts from Tonight's 60 Minutes Segment." > She pointed to Facebook's investment to monitor for harmful content; disputed the way Facebook's own research on teenagers' mental health has been reported; and rejected the claim that the social network has furthered political polarization. You are quoting something Facebook used as a defense
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aardvarkr 5y ago
Did you actually read the article or are you just trying to create controversy? That quote comes from a Facebook spokesperson trying to push back against the negative attention. > Facebook issued a lengthy statement from director of policy communications Lena Pietsch titled "Missing Facts from Tonight's 60 Minutes Segment." > She pointed to Facebook's investment to monitor for harmful content; disputed the way Facebook's own research on teenagers' mental health has been reported; and rejected the claim that the social network has furthered political polarization. How can you say "If there was a story here, I feel like they’re working hard on overplaying their hand at the risk of losing the audience once the initial frenzy wears off." when you have clearly demonstrated that you didn't bother to read the story in the first place and just like to cherrypick quotes out of context to prove a point? EDIT: And now the OP has edited their post but still stands by their claim that this is a nothingburger, without evidence this time. For context, the OP originally quoted "She pointed to Facebook's investment to monitor for harmful content" out of context as evidence of something good that facebook did but this article is trying to trump up into something bad.
- isabelc 5y ago
  From HN guidelines: >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article?"
  - aardvarkr 5y ago
    Because at the time it was the top comment making speculative claims and taking quotes WILDLY out of context. Accusing the author of trumping up an issue when the OP is quoting the rebuttal from the company is not just misleading but harmful misinformation and should be rightfully called out
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > EDIT: And now the OP has edited their post but still stands by their claim that this is a nothingburger, without evidence this time There was more to my post than the one-line quote that I removed. I also acknowledged the error and thank a commenter for pointing it out below.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
swampthinker 5y ago
That was a quote from Facebook’s official response to the leaks. The display ad on mobile cuts the article in a really odd way.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > The display ad on mobile cuts the article in a really odd way. Yep. That got me. Thanks for pointing it out. I removed that part of my post.
  - amznthrwaway 5y ago
    Thanks for leaving the part of your post where you argue that we should simply _not_ be bothered by these things, that being less bothered will, magically, result in greater response. You definitely aren’t making a bad faith argument at all.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    You should put an edit line in your OP then. Currently thread doesn’t really make sense with those silent edits.
ParanoidShroom 5y ago
Funny how those articles are popular, hating on big tech creates high engagement. Haven't we heard that argument before?
amznthrwaway 5y ago
[dead]
r00f 5y ago
It was pointed at by PR director, of course she tried to find some good things about FB
- edoceo 5y ago
  And paid handsomely for the trouble.
cycomanic 5y ago
I have to say it's extremely bad form to retroactively completely reedit your post so that your original statements (which were shown to be wrong) don't show anymore.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  I removed the misquote and thanked another user for pointing it out, but the rest of the comment still stands. Deleting a comment isn’t an option after people reply, so I don’t know what you want me to do. I apologized, removed the mistake, and thanked someone for pointing it out.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

paxys 5y ago

> Facebook issued a lengthy statement from director of policy communications Lena Pietsch titled "Missing Facts from Tonight's 60 Minutes Segment." > She pointed to Facebook's investment to monitor for harmful content; disputed the way Facebook's own research on teenagers' mental health has been reported; and rejected the claim that the social network has furthered political polarization. You are quoting something Facebook used as a defense

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

aardvarkr 5y ago

Did you actually read the article or are you just trying to create controversy? That quote comes from a Facebook spokesperson trying to push back against the negative attention. > Facebook issued a lengthy statement from director of policy communications Lena Pietsch titled "Missing Facts from Tonight's 60 Minutes Segment." > She pointed to Facebook's investment to monitor for harmful content; disputed the way Facebook's own research on teenagers' mental health has been reported; and rejected the claim that the social network has furthered political polarization. How can you say "If there was a story here, I feel like they’re working hard on overplaying their hand at the risk of losing the audience once the initial frenzy wears off." when you have clearly demonstrated that you didn't bother to read the story in the first place and just like to cherrypick quotes out of context to prove a point? EDIT: And now the OP has edited their post but still stands by their claim that this is a nothingburger, without evidence this time. For context, the OP originally quoted "She pointed to Facebook's investment to monitor for harmful content" out of context as evidence of something good that facebook did but this article is trying to trump up into something bad.

isabelc 5y ago
From HN guidelines: >Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article?"
- aardvarkr 5y ago
  Because at the time it was the top comment making speculative claims and taking quotes WILDLY out of context. Accusing the author of trumping up an issue when the OP is quoting the rebuttal from the company is not just misleading but harmful misinformation and should be rightfully called out
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> EDIT: And now the OP has edited their post but still stands by their claim that this is a nothingburger, without evidence this time There was more to my post than the one-line quote that I removed. I also acknowledged the error and thank a commenter for pointing it out below.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

swampthinker 5y ago

That was a quote from Facebook’s official response to the leaks. The display ad on mobile cuts the article in a really odd way.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> The display ad on mobile cuts the article in a really odd way. Yep. That got me. Thanks for pointing it out. I removed that part of my post.
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  Thanks for leaving the part of your post where you argue that we should simply _not_ be bothered by these things, that being less bothered will, magically, result in greater response. You definitely aren’t making a bad faith argument at all.
- bryan0 5y ago
  You should put an edit line in your OP then. Currently thread doesn’t really make sense with those silent edits.

ParanoidShroom 5y ago

Funny how those articles are popular, hating on big tech creates high engagement. Haven't we heard that argument before?

amznthrwaway 5y ago

[dead]

r00f 5y ago

It was pointed at by PR director, of course she tried to find some good things about FB

edoceo 5y ago
And paid handsomely for the trouble.

cycomanic 5y ago

I have to say it's extremely bad form to retroactively completely reedit your post so that your original statements (which were shown to be wrong) don't show anymore.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I removed the misquote and thanked another user for pointing it out, but the rest of the comment still stands. Deleting a comment isn’t an option after people reply, so I don’t know what you want me to do. I apologized, removed the mistake, and thanked someone for pointing it out.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]