I may be misunderstanding your claim that it's "detracting from any previous viable points". What points are you referring to that this detracts from?
If one reads the article there's a few interesting points-- it includes some statements by Mossberg and info on his book which will probably include some thoughts on Facebook.
I try to at least skim stories before commenting on them which is the only reason I opened this one. The title reads like cheap celebrity journalism. Something more fleshed-out, like an interview going in depth about his thoughts on Facebook and tech's impact as a whole, leading to his book, would've been more "NYT worthy" IMO. And a better title.
Also, mossberg is a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists being the news themselves is bad journalism. Isn't that why most journalists go out of their way to not to be part of a story?
If rupert murdoch, in his war with facebook, pressured mossberg to close his account, that would be news. Otherwise, this is just the nytimes and a journalist creating news, not reporting on news.
Regardless, this is still fair criticism. This would be like seeing in the scrolling banner of "Breaking News" on CNN "<Insert Well Known Person in their field> quits job at <Insert large company>"
Belongs in maybe the entertainment or business section, maybe, section, but wouldn't classify it as "tech news"
----
Having thought about it a little more, I can see a valid case when said person in question, considered monumental enough, leaves a platform, business or field and is reported as news. I guess it's more of a reflection of how little HN'ers (including myself) think of Facebook in the grand scheme of things. It's just a website. What's next, we report that he or she has left Flickr or Reddit? That's kind of what I think GP and myself were getting at. Now if this person was the founder of Facebook, or instrumental in the success of the platform, and then decides to leave, I think absolutely it would be tech news.
Walt had a pretty impressive group of friends:
https://www.slashgear.com/walt-mossberg-steve-jobs-and-bill-...
Any guy quitting facebook (who can sign up again for free in a heartbeat, it's zero risk) is an event, granted. Might as well talk about the time someone quit selling on eBay or had a video removed by Youtube or went to Ohio. It doesn't mean anything until you sensationalize it. This indicates that it is not news, but raw sensationalism.
Also a reminder how crazy young the field of computer science is -- important figures are still as young as 62! Kind of cool in a way. I hope to get to meet him in person.
EDIT: Right after posting this, I realized my world was ambiguous - "my world" is simply the people I interact with and the information that flows between us - not making a qualitative judgement.
I suppose one could spend an entire tech career having never heard the name Doanald Knuth, but I wouldn’t wear that as a badge of honor.
Mossberg is hardly on the level of Knuth, but it does cause me to wonder if the cave you must live in is damp enough to cause problems with computing gear.
Maybe the better question is, is Walt Mossberg still relevant to the technology scene?
When influential tech personalities, especially ones who are as corporate and CEO friendly as Mossberg, say the are leaving because of a values mis-match, it might be the tipping point for a broader exodus.
That's why it's news.
IMO statements by Chomsky would be more news-worthy. Or by people who might have bigger stakes in staying in the platform-- say if the NYT themselves announced they were gonna be leaving the platform. Mossberg is retired.
I guess the relevance of this piece depends on each person's admiration for Mossberg.
For better or worse he has a big audience, and the fact he's publicly quitting Facebook has more real world influence than a bunch of HN geeks doing so.
I don’t think anyone uses Facebook because it is “cool” (and thus susceptible to media tarnishing). They use it because their social network is on it and they value that.