3 ms·

I don't even trust the original blogger is being completely up-front and honest with us. He was going for the sensationalist angle from the start, and to have F

I don't even trust the original blogger is being completely up-front and honest with us. He was going for the sensationalist angle from the start, and to have Facebook call him and ask for his help was just too rich for him to handle. Ack, coverup! Ack, censorship! FB needs to find out which app did this. Give them a chance.

rjbond3rd 14y ago
Is he not performing the functions of a journalist? And if so, should we not encourage and admire someone's impulse to buck the system (without being destructive or unreasonable)? Why side with Goliath?
- unreal37 14y ago
  We should encourage reporting of the accurate truth, yes. We should discourage link-bait, and over-hype, and sensationalism. Even RWW should have done a better job looking into what happened, instead of just finding an anti-FB story of the day to post.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    That wouldn't comport with RW's editorial policies, though.
- rhizome 14y ago
  One of the primary responsibilities of a journalist is to avoid editorializing.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Yeah, that is the editor's job.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tlrobinson 14y ago
That should be easy, right? Just cross reference the list against every app's users (and their friends?)
ftwinnovations 14y ago
I completely agree with you. From the getgo, he said things like the Facebook "policy" department is basically the "police." Yes, there is a tasty similarity in spelling and overlapping meaning there, but if that's not sensationalist, I don't know what is. The guy sure knows now to write something that will get to the front of HN though!
smsm42 14y ago
Facebook didn't ask him for help. Facebook demanded his full submission and demanded him to behave like they want to, even though he has absolutely no obligation to protect the interests of Facebook in this matter or help them hide the fact that it happened. He might choose to do it if they ask nicely, but he has absolutely zero obligation to do it. And from what I read, they did not ask nicely at all. I'm assuming that approach is working very well in the US where everybody is scared shitless by the threat of very costly litigation that can be unleashed on anybody just by the virtue of Facebook having tons of money and ability to unleash a team of lawyers on anybody and mess up their life, even if they have done nothing wrong.

rjbond3rd 14y ago

Is he not performing the functions of a journalist? And if so, should we not encourage and admire someone's impulse to buck the system (without being destructive or unreasonable)? Why side with Goliath?

unreal37 14y ago
We should encourage reporting of the accurate truth, yes. We should discourage link-bait, and over-hype, and sensationalism. Even RWW should have done a better job looking into what happened, instead of just finding an anti-FB story of the day to post.
- rhizome 14y ago
  That wouldn't comport with RW's editorial policies, though.
rhizome 14y ago
One of the primary responsibilities of a journalist is to avoid editorializing.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Yeah, that is the editor's job.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tlrobinson 14y ago

That should be easy, right? Just cross reference the list against every app's users (and their friends?)

ftwinnovations 14y ago

I completely agree with you. From the getgo, he said things like the Facebook "policy" department is basically the "police." Yes, there is a tasty similarity in spelling and overlapping meaning there, but if that's not sensationalist, I don't know what is. The guy sure knows now to write something that will get to the front of HN though!

smsm42 14y ago

Facebook didn't ask him for help. Facebook demanded his full submission and demanded him to behave like they want to, even though he has absolutely no obligation to protect the interests of Facebook in this matter or help them hide the fact that it happened. He might choose to do it if they ask nicely, but he has absolutely zero obligation to do it. And from what I read, they did not ask nicely at all. I'm assuming that approach is working very well in the US where everybody is scared shitless by the threat of very costly litigation that can be unleashed on anybody just by the virtue of Facebook having tons of money and ability to unleash a team of lawyers on anybody and mess up their life, even if they have done nothing wrong.