I get that you can be skeptical of the press but to claim that anecdotal or hearsay from friends is more trustworthy is really odd to me. This strikes me as an easy way to fall for false rumors. I'd rather put trust in the fact that there is plenty of people who would benefit from reporting about the inaccuracy of the claims of other journalists. We saw this with the Bloomberg story about purported Chinese attacks on hardware companies.

how would hear about this story unless you are personally friends with alex stamos or zuckerberg or sandenberg? I am all for skepticism but blanket rejection of responsible journalism seems like an over-reaction. the reporting of the new york times on facebook has been continuously borne out by events.

You're asserting that it is responsible journalism. That is not a given in this debate.

I think both can be the case: legacy media is actively attacking online media lately. I've seen a rise is poorly-veiled anti-first amendment articles recently from places such as the New York Times and the New Yorker. So I have no doubt legacy media feels very threatened. But at the same time, Facebook is fucking evil.

So what you're saying is that you don't trust the news due to bias and self interest, but you do trust those who actively drink from the Surveillance Valley kool-aid pitcher to give you an honest and unbiased point of view on this topic?