[sremani]

Even though their formats are different NYT et al. and FB are competitors. Even though there is kernel of truth, the media witch-hunt of Facebook is out of proportion.

Long story short, its not concern for democracy (if NYT was concerned about democracy it would not be a rabid partisan) its just jealousy and hate that Zuckerberg is eating their cake.

[aaron-lebo]

The anxiety seems proportional to Facebook's reach, does it not? Does anyone else have that reach?

Don't believe you can support your second paragraph. You can't erase the points an article makes by identifying a potential motive, and surely in an organization the size of the NYT, there's room for lots of motives.

Whether they are jealous or not, Facebook is still a threat to democracy.

[Ygg2]

The anxiety also seems proportional to NYT's fading influence.

[notacoward]

Probably a grain of truth to that, but no more. Sure, there are plenty of valid concerns and discussions to be had about Facebook (where I work BTW). OTOH, a lot of the most vitriolic commentary, from both fellow techies and from traditional media, seems to have at least a tinge of Tall Poppy Syndrome to it. Does anyone really think $newspaper or $startup would be any less problematic if they grew to the same size? Get real. Maybe if we dropped some of the double standards and blind hate, we could actually have those important conversations about real solutions to real problems.

[moron4hire]

That's a good point. The government broke up Bell Labs when it got too big for the public good. It's high time a few of the modern telecommunications giants have the same done to them.

[austinjp]

> if NYT was concerned about democracy it would not be a rabid partisan

How does that follow? How are democracy and partisanship exclusive, or "orthogonal"?

[nof]

What an uneducated answer from what I assume is a techy. Facebook is a treat to democracies. There are more articles on this than the other way around.

[notacoward]

> Facebook is a treat to democracies.

Funny that you should mention education in your comment, since commentary based on the lack of it is a real threat to democracy.

> There are more articles on this than the other way around.

Appeal to popularity. Facebook might indeed be a threat to democracy, in the same way that radio or TV were in their heyday. It's for us to deal with it and turn it into something positive, not try to turn back the technological clock.

[loceng]

Treat or threat?..

[cantrip]

One of the most annoying things to me about HN, or any forum site in general, is when people jump on obvious typos or grammar errors when they could easily ignore them and respond to the actual content of the comment instead.

Use context. It's so incredibly obvious that this person didn't mean treat, and yet here it is, a little jab to say "I'm just a little bit better than you" because I noticed a missing h and just couldn't help but point it out to everyone else, who also noticed it but didn't care.

[loceng]

Is it obvious though? I thought maybe they were being funny or clever by perhaps meaning to use the word treat. Responded further here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15703788

No jab intended. I think assumptions are dangerous as well, and lead to more problems - including internal distress - instead of perhaps putting inquiry forward to ask for intentions instead. Obviously you're getting an answer from me now, however you still may not believe my intentions.

[cantrip]

Let's break it down.

The first poster says Facebook "[is] not [a] concern for democracy".

The responder says "What an uneducated answer from what I assume is a techy. Facebook is a treat to democracies. There are more articles on this than the other way around."

The first two sentences seems to imply that they disagree with what has just been said, that is except for the word "treat", which implies that they actually agree. If they are saying "treat" then they're saying not only is Facebook not a concern for democracy, but it is actively beneficial.

However this argument is then immediately negated by saying "There are more articles on this than the other way around." Ignoring the ridiculously false logic of the statement, there are objectively more articles about Facebook being a threat to democracy than there are about Facebook being a benefit to it.

Thus I concluded the person meant "threat", which I found to be a very obvious conclusion given the context of the statement.

[loceng]

I think you're not understanding me. If "Facebook is a treat for democracy" is said sarcastically, it has the same meaning as "Facebook is a threat to democracy."; sarcastic might be the wrong term, I can't think of the right one at the moment.

[notacoward]

Maybe if s/he hadn't just accused other people of being uneducated (without repercussions despite the obvious lack of respect), the typo wouldn't have stood out as hypocritical. You too need to use context.

[kadenshep]

What? You couldn't guess what he was at least trying to get at? If you were really confused, you could have substituted each word and then disregarded the substitution that makes absolutely no sense.

[loceng]

Honestly I wasn't sure what point the commenter was making, and was looking for clarification. Perhaps they were being sarcastic by seriously meaning to say that FB is a treat for "democracies" - in the sense that for targeting and accessing voters to potentially manipulate is a piece of cake with FB's ad targeting. It would act as a way to point out otherwise if it was a typo or not as well.

[kadenshep]

>it would not be a rabid partisan

I'm sorry, what?

[kevinthew]

"Rabid partisan". I do love coming onto to HackerTheDonald to get my hot takes.

[kadenshep]

"I'm going to use my political motivations as a shield to avoid credible, consistently reasonable reporting of situations that don't align with my narrative. The facts, err I mean NY Times, are just biased!"