Have you ever wondered how "Facebook is difference between eroticism and sexHelping Ensure the Integrity of the 2020 Election?"

Well then, does Teen Vogue have a story for you! Or wait, at least it did, before a fawning article with that very headline was pulled by the award-winning publication — without explanation — shortly after it was published Wednesday morning.

The article, which uncritically profiled five Facebook employees, presented itself as a "behind the scenes" look at how the social media giant is "taking measures to protect against foreign interference and stop the spread of misinformation." In other words, it stunk of sponsored content and initially ran both with no byline andno disclaimer regarding its potential ad nature.

---

You May Also Like

---

---

After people took notice on Twitter, the story was updated to include an editor's note saying it wassponsored content, only to later have that editor's note removed.

But things were soon to get even weirder.

No byline. Credit: Screenshot / teen vogue Editor's note. Credit: Screenshot / teen vogue

At some point, Teen Vogue contributor Lauren Rearick was listed as the author of the story. When reached for comment, Rearick told Mashable that she did not write the article.

"That isn’t my byline," she wrote over email. "I didn’t write this story."

And yet, there it was.

Um, what? Credit: Screenshot / teen vogue

In a follow-up email, Rearick noted that she was just as confused as we were as to how her byline ended up on the story, and directed us to Condé Nast communications director Jaime Marsanico.

We emailed Marsanico, as well as Teen Vogue for comment. We received no response as of publishing. We also reached out to Facebook in an effort to determine if it had paid for the Teen Vogue story. Facebook also didn't get back to us.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg did, however, have time to post the story to her personal Facebook page at 8:27 a.m. PT. The story was pulled from Teen Voguearound 10:00 a.m. PT.

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up!

Hmm. Credit: Screenshot / Facebook

So, why does any of this matter? That Facebook would try to launder uncritical praise of its election security efforts ahead of the 2020 U.S. presidential election as actual newsis no surprise. It, along with many other companies, has a long history of running sponsored content, and has made concerted efforts to convince the media and the public of its election "integrity" work in the past. Although the article did bring up a few thorny points — like why Facebook won't fact-check political ads or how not doing so may hamstring their efforts to combat misinformation — they were used as springboards for corporate spin without additional context of Facebook's controversial election history. Remember the quickly abandoned "war room?"

Facebook is doing all it can to convince both elected officials and its users that it's changed since 2016. This article was likely part of that effort. However, as with so many things that Facebook does, it appears to have backfired. Also, as with many internet flubs, the eyebrow-raising url lives on, as does a copy of the article (pre-byline and pre-disclosure) on the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

The ham-fisted way this piece was run, then updated, then un-updated, pinned on Rearick, and pulled suggests a serious blunder by the online magazine, Facebook, or both. This is especially true when one considers the ostensible topic of the piece: integrity.

SEE ALSO: Facebook wants to slide ads into your DMs, according to newly published patent

"With certain politicians purposefully posting fake ads to make a statement about Facebook’s policies," Facebook product manager Sarah Schiff was asked for the article, "how do you plan to mediate fake ads?"

Fake ads, indeed. It looks like Facebook still has some work to do.

UPDATE: Jan. 8, 2020, 1:39 p.m. PST:According to Max Tani, the Daily Beast's media reporter, Teen Vogue issued the following statement:

"We made a series of errors labeling this piece, and we apologize for any confusion this may have caused. We don’t take our audience’s trust for granted, and ultimately decided that the piece should be taken down entirely to avoid further confusion."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Notably, this statement does not address how or why Rearick's byline was added to story. Teen Vogue has still not responded to Mashable's request for comment.

UPDATE: Jan. 8, 2020, 2:56 p.m. PST: Recode's Peter Kafka reports that the Teen Vogue article was initially supposed to be sponsored content.

"We had a paid partnership with Teen Vogue related to their women’s summit, which included sponsored content," he quotes a Facebook spokesperson as saying. "Our team understood this story was purely editorial, but there was a misunderstanding."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Meanwhile, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg deleted her Facebook post linking to the Teen Vogue article.

UPDATE: Jan. 8, 2020, 5:29 p.m. PST: A Teen Vogue spokesperson finally responded to our request for comment, however, only with the same statement Max Tani tweeted hours ago.

"We made a series of errors labeling this piece, and we apologize for any confusion this may have caused. We don’t take our audience’s trust for granted, and ultimately decided that the piece should be taken down entirely to avoid further confusion."

Notably, the spokesperson did not explain how Rearick's byline ended up on the story, or whether or not it was indeed sponsored content.

Topics Facebook Social Media