[kodablah]

Didn't read the article, but does anyone see some media narrative happening here? One part of me would like to think that they are just publishing what readers want. But another part says there is an underlying narrative. I can almost predict the news cycle wrt tech, data collection, privacy, etc. Does anyone stop to think, why now? I fear this is a rolling snowball started during the election and it won't end until those with pitchforks get the laws the rest who are quieter may not want. This media-built furor, while it may have legitimate roots, has me seeing deja vu. I fear the internet equivalent of the patriot act.

Just know when we get things like the cloud act, the next sopa, or the next government-over-tech bill, we asked for it by building this furor. Seems quite unbalanced to me. I wonder how I or others can stop feeding this growing furor.

[ucaetano]

> but does anyone see some media narrative happening here?

WSJ is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. He has been in a anti-Google crusade for a while.

2009: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2009/11/murdoch_vs_google...

2014: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/rupert_murdoch_says...

[kodablah]

I don't consider this specific to a single media outlet (or ownership group) and I don't consider this specific to a specific company. Media outlets will publish anything anti-tech they can now because it helps stoke this raging fire. Just be careful of what comes out of the ashes. When asking "why was this published" when reading an article, don't get stopped too early by finding some link on the specific article, who wrote it, or who it mentions by name. Instead, think about the broader approach and intended effect.

[ocdtrekkie]

Why is it that no one ever suggests articles about Facebook's privacy violations are part of some anti-Facebook conspiracy?

[cromwellian]

Because there are very specific reasons to be suspicious of Fox or WSJ articles and if this anti-Google article had appeared in the NYT it would have been better and free of suspicion.

Anti-Tesla articles are another example of places to be suspicious of the source because a) day traders trying to short the stock have deliberately tried to spread damaging information and b) fossil fuel companies and regular car manufacturers have a vested interest.

That’s not to say all anti-Tesla articles are wrong, just one should be careful that you aren’t being a rube to propaganda.

Also, Facebook wasn’t dinged for collecting data, they were dinged for allowing a third party to scrape it.

The people using Facebook are quite aware of all of the stuff they’re telling FB interests, likes, groups they join, what they don’t want is third parties who shouldn’t know, to know.

I don’t care that Facebook knows what articles I liked. But I don’t want Cambridge Analytica to know in an individually identifiable manner.