Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
[dead]


21 points by tptacek 2 days ago | link

1. Scoble reports a claim about Facebook censoring groups.

2. Because Facebook perceives Scoble to be influential, he gets a timely rebuttal from them.

3. We know nothing more than when we started.

Summary: journalistic NOP.

-----

5 points by ErrantX 2 days ago | link

The Zuckerberg email was at least mildly interesting.

-----

1 point by shadowsun7 2 days ago | link

I don't like the VP's reply. If you didn't delete the page, say so. If you did, explain why. I really do hope Scoble follows up on this, and pushes for an update to his 'investigations'

-----

1 point by rue 2 days ago | link

Apparently HN is running -O0.

-----

6 points by andrewljohnson 2 days ago | link

Scoble is being a jerk about this whole thing, a classic blog jerk.

First, he publishes a lie that he should have known was a lie. Then, he got contacted by both Schrage and Zuck. So, does he edit his post or add a disclaimer to the top? Of course not! Only a journalist would check with the accused first, and only a journalist would correct the story in a meaningful way.

But Scoble is a blogger, so he adds the emails he got from FB to the end of the blog. And what is the net effect of this? It's two-fold:

1) many people will never get to the correction part

2) those who do will see resolute Scoble posting the rebuttal at the end, but that's just because he's an honorable blogger.. of course the gist of the story is right, or he would have changed it, right? Right? :(

-----

1 point by friendstock 2 days ago | link

mmm this could be a case of Scoble publishing before thinking.

-----




Lists | RSS | Search | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | News News | Feature Requests | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Analytics by Mixpanel