This is a Facebook submarine [1].
And if it is PR, it's a weird tactic. The article seems to be using FB as benchmark for "worst offender".
So sure, I don't have any definite proof that this was a story planted by Facebook's PR team. That would require me to have seen the communications between this reporter and them, but I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was A Facebook Production given the context (the running spat between Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook employees on Twitter whining about this very thing, etc).
I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive.
>I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was a Facebook Production given the context
For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor.
That's fair. I should have written a fuller comment off the bat, but everyone can read my reasoning now.
>For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor.
I actually don't think this is anything particularly nefarious or underhanded. It's all in the game, as Omar would say. In fact I'm amused by how transparently bad it is. She brings up some good points (the permissions should be more granular) but the framing of the story is clearly working in service of Facebook's agenda. The actual solution that needs to happen isn't technical at all. It requires new legislation establishing equivalents to Data Protection Commissioners in the EU and creating a comprehensive, omnibus policy for them to enforce.
I wish we could all just agree not to cite that (13 year old) PG article anymore. We all know what PR is now, right? That's all it is about. I don't think we need a special HN-only term ("submarine") for basic tactics of PR.