On: Facebook are frantically trying to find out who le...

[dfc]

It is kind of strange that the author messed up is/are in the title but not in the first sentence.

[chrisseaton → dfc]

> the author messed up is/are

Facebook are a group of people. So you say 'Facebook are' in many countries.

In the US groups of people like companies are considered a single person in their own right. So you say 'Facebook is' in the US.

Is't not 'messing up'. It's a cultural difference.

[dfc → chrisseaton]

So then it seems like using "is" in the first sentence would be strange? I do not understand why the usage would not be consistent.

> Facebook is trying really hard to plug...

[CalRobert → dfc]

This is common usage in non-US English to refer to companies.

It's kind of nice, actually - "are" helps remind us that Facebook are a company composed of many people. Using "is" makes it seem more abstract.

[black6 → dfc]

The full title is grammatically correct, as '"Digital gangsters"' is modifying "Facebook" to be a plural noun. Later on, though, we have this mistake:

"The publications is [sic] among several media outlets..."

[wkearney99 → dfc]

"Facebook personnel are" would work. But, I agree, "Facebook is" or "Facebook management is" would seem more grammatically correct.

[chrisseaton → wkearney99]

In many countries companies and groups of people like managers are considered plural, so 'are' is grammatically correct.