[zombieprocesses]

> I'm more disturbed by your labeling something as "propaganda" simply because you yourself didn't feel it merited reporting on.

There is a world of difference between objective reporting and biased propaganda.

I hate facebook. I never signed up for facebook. But when news organizations are actively attacking facebook, it isn't reporting, it is propaganda. When news organizations are pushing #deleteFacebook, it isn't reporting, it isn't journalism, it is propaganda.

If you want, use the waybackmachine and check HN's frontpage. For the last year, there has been anti-FB propaganda on it every single day. Today, there are 6 anti-FB stories. Yesterday, I counted 4.

Just because you don't like facebook doesn't mean you have to like propaganda/anti-FB spam.

I wish HN would allow us to opt out of topics. I already know FB is rubbish. I don't need constant spam from the news media and their social media team to tell me what I already know.

Talk about polluting the internet. The likes of bloomberg and their social media team are just as guilty of it as facebook.

[bogomipz]

>"There is a world of difference between objective reporting and biased propaganda."

So lets examine the "propagandist" here - Bloomberg News. Selecting just a single Bloomberg tech reporter's(Sarah Frier) coverage of FB in the last year.[1]

We see stories such as:

"Sheryl Sandberg Calls for U.S. Policy Changes to Aid Working Mothers"

"Facebook Is Determined to Build Ties With Automakers"

"Facebook Hires Apple Veteran to Run Oculus VR Hardware"

"Facebook's Strategy for Augmented Reality Starts With Phones"

None of these stories contain any negative portrayal of FB. So clearly Bloomberg is not an anti-FB propagandist.

So a news organization can be a part-time propagandist then? In other words they are only producing propaganda when the story contain unflattering details about a subject?

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AP-41JG4_zk/sarah-frier

[zombieprocesses]

> So a news organization can be a part-time propagandist then?

Of course.

> In other words they are only producing propaganda when the story contain unflattering details about a subject?

No. They can be producing propaganda when they are pushing a flattering narrative as well. Like what foxnews does with trump.

And it isn't just bloomberg. It's much of the media. As I said, there hasn't been a day without some propaganda about FB the past year. If you doubt it, do as I suggested. Go spend some time on the waybackmachine.

[bogomipz]

Actual propaganda is used to propel an agenda, ideology or belief system. None of those things are part-time considerations.

[zombieprocesses]

> Actual propaganda is used to propel an agenda, ideology or belief system.

Yes. What do you think #deleteFacebook is? We don't really have news anymore. We have agenda. Foxnews has an agenda. CNN has an agenda. The entire media has an agenda. The days of objective journalism is long gone. I think that's obvious to anyone paying attention. I'm not holding my breath on it returning anytime soon.

> None of those things are part-time considerations.

Sure they are. Bloomberg doesn't have to spend 24/7 on facebook. But they along with the rest of the media can.

Anyways, this is pointless. The evidence is right there for you to see. You can choose not to accept it if you want. Maybe it makes sense to you that we get 24/7 propaganda about facebook. Doesn't make sense to me.

[bogomipz]

>"What do you think #deleteFacebook is?"

And nowhere in the article is "#deleteFacebook" used. You seemed to have lost site of the context - i.e this article and the OP's assertion that it is propaganda.

[BullIsland]

With respect, this and pieces like it are not propaganda purely because they point out unflattering details of FB's behavior and that of their affiliates.

Im a techie working in finance and the reaction from most of the non-tech folks here is along the lines of "jesus, the amount of data they have on people is scary! Why do they have all of it? And what's this about android phones being used to send my call history to FB??".

Most folks outside tech use FB for the convenience and have absolutely zero idea of the scale of telemetry being gathered on them. Articles like this are written for the non technical people in our midst and the volume of them reflects the scale of education required for the general public on this issue.

On a personal note I'd say that on the whole people developing a healthy skepticism of just arbitrarily sharing personal details on social media or the internet in general is a positive thing for every society and journalists shedding light on that fact are not doing anyone a disservice.