Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook executives are upset at The New York Times

[xeni]

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/04/facebook-angry-at-nyt.html

…

[Avyctes]

@xeni

The frustration was rekindled this week after the Times bought a sponsored post on Facebook to promote “a step-by-step guide to breaking up with” Facebook and Instagram — a move sources likened to Facebook taking out an ad in the Times encouraging readers to cancel their subscriptions.

This may be alien to a corporation, especially one like facebook, but you don’t have to take their money when it’s counterproductive. I mean, really?

[NashRambler]

ZUCK: How dare they tell people a Facebook negative version of the truth. That’s OUR job! That’s OUR truth! We’ve got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentleman! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately, immediately! Harrumph, harrumph! . . .I didn’t get a “harrumph” out of that guy!
FACEBOOK EXEC: Harrumph!
ZUCK: You watch your ass.

[agger_modspil]

Zuckerberg tears, a fine and delicious vintage.

[kpkpkp]

@Avyctes

This may be alien to a corporation, especially one like facebook, but you don’t have to take their money when it’s counterproductive. I mean, really?

I think it speak to Facebook’s ineptitude at handling damaging (even to themselves) content - they just take the ad, take the money, and shovel the shit down the hole.

[anotherone]

@xeni

Facebook sources believe some of the paper’s reporters willfully ignored nuances about how the internet works in order to cast Facebook in the worst-possible light

As an IT professional with 29 years of experience, I wonder what nuance might forgive a company for lying about it’s data privacy practices.

[HMSGoose]

After almost a decade now of completely FREE primetime advetisment from literally every news organization on earth in the form of “follow us on Facebook!” with every signoff, this barely qualifies as a feather on the other side of the scale, much less something to throw a tantrum over.

[generic_name]

This is how it works, Zuck: “bias” is when Fox News defends Trump breaking the law, “bias” is not reporting that he broke the law. So if you’re angry that the NYT is reporting on the unsavory things you do, then stop doing them.

[LDoBe]

[Boundegar]

So… they didn’t actually point out anything untrue in the Times’ reporting?

[knoxblox]

[RickMycroft]

@xeni

Facebook sources believe some of the paper’s reporters willfully ignored nuances about how the internet works in order to cast Facebook in the worst-possible light

It’d be nice if they provided some examples.

[larrycovey]

I can’t swear to it, but I think I have seen ads in the Times from people or companies who don’t like the Times, telling people to cancel their subscriptions. And I definitely think if someone was willing to pay for the ad space, the Times would run it.

[fuzzyfungus]

I think that it’s from the same set of ‘objectivity’ procedures that defines finding two people arguing and interviewing both as the true path to balance:

Just as the existence of the disagreement is the essential truth of the situation, which it would be disrespectful to sully with any crass interjections about one side or the other being full of it, points of inadequate nuance or minor factual errors must have their equality with major investigative conclusions respected as carefully as possible.

So long as any of the Times’ conclusions could have been expressed with more nuance they cease to be conclusions at all; but simply one side of a controversy(and one between the intellectually incautious and their more nuanced betters, at that).

Smokescreen epistemology can be fun!

[Avyctes]

Perhaps, but does the editor of the Times complain publicly about the content of those ads after they’ve been published?

[Lexicat]

Aw… is widdle Zuckums sad that the negative press coverage may lead humans to

[Papasan]

[jra]

Reality has a well known anti-monopoly bias.

[anon62577920]

@anotherone

As an IT professional with 29 years of experience, I wonder what nuance might forgive a company for lying about it’s data privacy practices.

I know a couple people who work in a technical capacity at the times, and I find the insinuation a reporter would willfully ignore the truth (even a technical truth) hard to believe. They do a good job of looping in internal experts to sanity check things. What they probably mean is the times refuses to use Facebook’s bullshit framings of things (notice and control, it’s ok to do things to your body data as long as you don’t say no opt out). Or they’re simply engaging in whataboutism - saying it’s unfair for the times to write stories about FB because other companies also have shitty practices.

[LDoBe]

Ah yes. “everybody in the industry does it, therefore the industry itself is justified”.