I feel a PR piece shouldn't be the only post if there's subtext like "a security/privacy flaw" that affected millions.
Also the comment thread for the Google PR post seem to be mainly about how little Google+ was used and various issues around its launch.
Here's the link if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243
Thanks for posting this, you saved me a bunch of time digging for it.
There's a relevant moderator post [3] on the Google PR piece thread [4], which suggests that concerns about the WSJ article's paywall have resulted in a manual moderator intervention to let the Google PR piece inherit the WSJ article's rank on the page. This is unfortunate, because a company PR piece that buries the lede is hardly equivalent to a critical news report.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169719 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243
Which was a WSJ article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared...