The Wall Street Journal's "Facebook Files" has been widely lauded. But every article in the series also contains Facebook tracking scripts, and this clear conflict of interest (along with the WSJ's financial relationship with Facebook) is never mentioned.https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039 …
-
Show this thread
-
Pinboard Retweeted Pinboard
This is not unique to the WSJ, but part of a dismaying industry standard in journalism. For example, the New York Times ran a flagship series on privacy, complete with earnest editorial calling for regulation, that was stuffed with ad trackers.https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1116354502032932865 …
Pinboard added,
3 replies 17 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Pinboard Retweeted Pinboard
The New York Times went so far as to run an op-ed from the CEO of Google without disclosing either the site's close financial relationship with Google or its role in enabling internet-wide surveillance by the tech giant.https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1126130280916561923 …
Pinboard added,
2 replies 13 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
By my count, the WSJ's Facebook Files series alone serves tracking scripts and other cruft from over 100 outside domains, including Yahoo, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and a rogue's gallery of ad tech intermediaries. The industry practice where this is not disclosed is indefensible.
1 reply 19 retweets 41 likesShow this thread -
Whatever harms social media has caused have been abetted at every step by major news sites, who have always pushed the frontiers of invasive surveillance and reader-hostile tracking. Editors' decision to exempt this fact from disclosure diminishes their reporters' stellar work.
2 replies 7 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Pinboard Retweeted Pinboard
The Privacy Project solved this conundrum by launching with an "adtech, man, what are we going to do?" editorial by the publisher later linked as a catchall disclaimer, and concluding with the decision that maybe sacrificing all this privacy was worth it.https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1151239146419003394 …
Pinboard added,
Pinboard @PinboardThe New York Times's surveillance-infested Privacy Project concludes that sacrificing privacy can be worthwhile, citing in part an op-ed by the CEO of one of the paper's most lucrative business partners https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/privacy-project-nytimes.html … pic.twitter.com/OeKlela8mHShow this thread1 reply 5 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
We need investigative journalism on Big Tech that is not so financially beholden to the companies it is trying to cover. In the absence of that, and while we wait, readers at least deserve a clear disclosure of business relationships on such articles. It's the web, there's room!
1 reply 11 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
It also wouldn't hurt for participants in this unsavory practice to grow a spine and force disclosure. On the Privacy Project, I talked to people all the way up to editor who said "I hate this, I sent email about it, but what can I do?" Pity the powerless NYT editors out there.
1 reply 6 retweets 25 likesShow this thread
Facebook makes an attractive and compelling villain, but the problem is systemic, and hiding this fact only makes large news sites' relationship with readers more adversarial. It's like telling grapes all about how evil Ernest and Julio Gallo are while you pick them.
-
-
The people who built this extractive and exploitative system of delivering online journalism are the ones now who weep the loudest about the spread of misinformation, and why people don't trust them as much as they should.
1 reply 11 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
The status quo on privacy is that most prominent voices are former employees of big tech, the privacy think tanks all take tech money, Congress also takes the money and relies on social media for fundraising and campaigning, and journalism lives and dies by tracking and virality.
1 reply 8 retweets 20 likesShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.