I appreciate the reply and the difficulties with real-time news updates. But there is a clear fact that is in the first version and not in the second version: Stamos's advocacy for transparency caused "consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg"
-
On this point, I can't speak for the NYT, but no, it does not seem to be their policy to remove substantive information (or make edits) without a correction. Though I'm betting we disagree on what "substantive information" is.
How is Sandberg's view on what to do about Russian influence on Facebook not substantive? Which side of the debate was she on? Earlier, the NYT said she opposed pushing back. Now the NYT won't say what her position was. That's a huge difference -- and hugely to the benefit of her
-
-
Again, just my interpretation. I never felt that "consternation" thing was a real position. But Tuesday follow up seems more explicit: Stamos and Sandberg's relationship deteriorated b/c of "how to handle Russian interference". Then Stamos lost his job.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/technology/alex-stamos-facebook-security.html …
-
Ok but we know how Stamos wanted to handle it: investigate and disclose. Did Sandberg oppose that? We used to know, now we don't.
-
The answer to that question matters.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ryan- that’s in the story, she opposed Stamos. And in our follow up story we delve into it more.
-
He wanted to "investigate and disclose Russian activity on Facebook," per the original piece. So it's accurate to say she opposed him on that front?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because the line in the story was not particularly substantive -- no offense to NYT reporters. It said Stamos's strong advocacy, which often led to "the consternation of other top executives, including Sandberg". Consternation means dismay/discomfort...
-
The story is about Stamos, so why should mentions of Sandberg be immutable/uneditable when they a 300-word blurb becomes 1,300? The irony is that Sandberg was mentioned *more* in the revised edition. I get people wanting to focus on Sandberg. But doesn't require NYT conspiracy
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.