4 ms·
The article simply states the issue. Its not up to the writer to come up with excuses for facebook, which if you are really hot on bad journalists you would rig
by alan_cx 13y ago
The article simply states the issue. Its not up to the writer to come up with excuses for facebook, which if you are really hot on bad journalists you would rightly write off a mere speculation. Its up to facebook to explain their position. If their excuse turns out to be a reasonable reason, then lets hear it.
- eli 13y ago"Its up to facebook to explain their position." Uh, yeah. That's why the parent comment suggests asking Facebook what's going on NOT guessing about it!
- k-mcgrady 13y agoIt's up to the journalist to investigate and find out why Facebook is doing this so he can write a more complete story.
- aetimmes 13y agoNot necessarily - if their goal is to get Facebook to reverse the change (which I imagine it is based on the fact that the website is based in an area with a lot of civil unrest), then providing reasonable rationalization in the article isn't what you want to do.
- theg2 13y agoIn that case this isn't journalism but propaganda (even if its the good kind). Lobbyists do the same thing yet we all hate them for it, these guys shouldn't get a free pass and get to call it journalism if they aren't portraying both sides. Edit: fixed mobile typos
- extra88 13y agoI've now been able to reach the page to read is myself. How is this propaganda? What's the other side to exposing activists to observation by oppressive regimes?
- alan_cx 13y agoThat term "more complete" is your own standard, and not one of journalism. "More complete" can go on for ever.
- bpatrianakos 13y agoI don't think Facebook is really obligated to explain especially if its for some security reason or automatic. What's bad about the article is that it leads you down a certain way of thinking without really saying so.
- alan_cx 13y agoNot in detail, no. But it can give a general, reasonable sounding statement to counter the article.