Yeah, we just have different premises and assumptions. You and I both accept the following statement made by the article:
> "Perlroth, however, confirmed that the change occurred after Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the New York Times–some time after the story was published"
You think it's clear that the author is intending to state a casual relationship. Great. So my point is that the author is obliged to prove how he knows this is a causal relationship.
You can re-read his post all the way up and down, he provides no evidence. Meanwhile, Perlroth has explained [0] why she was in contact with FB's PR people -- because they wanted to give her Stamos's formal statement. This statement is quoted in Perlroth's story.
So we're still back at square one, starting with the author's hypothesis that FB's contact with NYT is related to the NYT's edit/update of their article. You're free to assume without evidence that it is more than a correlation, just as I'm free to take up skepticism. In a court case, if the NYT thought it'd be a good idea to sue for defamation, I really wonder what the L&C author would use as evidence. NYT, at least, will have the messages/emails between its reporters and FB.
> "Perlroth, however, confirmed that the change occurred after Facebook’s public relations team reached out to the New York Times–some time after the story was published"
You think it's clear that the author is intending to state a casual relationship. Great. So my point is that the author is obliged to prove how he knows this is a causal relationship.
You can re-read his post all the way up and down, he provides no evidence. Meanwhile, Perlroth has explained [0] why she was in contact with FB's PR people -- because they wanted to give her Stamos's formal statement. This statement is quoted in Perlroth's story.
So we're still back at square one, starting with the author's hypothesis that FB's contact with NYT is related to the NYT's edit/update of their article. You're free to assume without evidence that it is more than a correlation, just as I'm free to take up skepticism. In a court case, if the NYT thought it'd be a good idea to sue for defamation, I really wonder what the L&C author would use as evidence. NYT, at least, will have the messages/emails between its reporters and FB.
[0] https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/976159345195941888