101–110 of 368 posts
If your cause is just, isn't a non-violent protest enough? Speaking about it, voting with your dollar, etc?
1) http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox-be...
The issue is that FB advertises itself as "conduit" or "network connection". You log in, communicate with people and the site tools, FB runs ads on your eyeballs, etc. Similar to how I give my electricity provider money, and they give me electricity. Now FB clearly sees themselves as (let's be honest) a "power broker" or "rain maker". Not the same as "utility" or "network connection" or "conduit".
Perhaps Facebook was suppressing "news" items contradicted by empirical reality, and this policy disproportionately affected conservative positions.
Perhaps Facebook was suppressing "news" items contradicted by empirical reality, and this policy disproportionately affected conservative positions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's an overly broad and biased characterization. I find it hard to believe that an entire half of the voting spectrum is made up of liars and charlatans.
But it should be pretty easy to believe that half of people (at least) are gullible. If "Obama bans Christmas" ends up as trending news because a couple hundred far-out whackjobs clicked on it, then your mom sees that in the trending box, and now your mom thinks that Obama banned Christmas.
"Obama bans 'Merry Christmas'" would likely get far more clicks and trend more than "Obama said Happy Holidays yesterday". To me, the problem is in the headline writing, coupled with silly human behaviors and algorithms. Not sure how to solve that problem.
I think Gizmodo's headline on this story is a compelling example of what I'm talking about. "Facebook has a tool used by curators to modify the Trending News section" probably wouldn't get as many clicks.
People are people. In a way this isn't news at all. The problem is that these companies are hiding behind the "But it's all just an algorithm" defense, when, in fact, as we all suspected, there are real people behind the scenes slanting things. My gut tells me that a lot of tech companies are subtly controlling the types of news their consumers get. Overall this is probably a good thing -- helps keep the quality high…
Genuinely curious: As a libertarian, are you equally pissed off when a bunch of right-leaning folks start controlling what you consume from a political, and not just quality, angle—and then lie about it?
And I am also meta-pissed when a bunch of money/power-leaning folks start influencing the propaganda themes of both the bunch of left-leaning folks and the bunch of right-leaning folks. Media consolidation just makes that particular channel wider and deeper.
I am not pissed that there is a conservative talk radio station on my FM spectrum, and no other talker on the dial within range. Their bias is open and obvious. if I don't like it, I can listen to one of the 50 identical Bain Capital/THL Partners (IHeartMedia) or Oaktree Capital Management (Cumulus) stations. And I am pissed about that.
People are people. In a way this isn't news at all. The problem is that these companies are hiding behind the "But it's all just an algorithm" defense, when, in fact, as we all suspected, there are real people behind the scenes slanting things. My gut tells me that a lot of tech companies are subtly controlling the types of news their consumers get. Overall this is probably a good thing -- helps keep the quality high…
Genuinely curious: As a libertarian, are you equally pissed off when a bunch of right-leaning folks start controlling what you consume from a political, and not just quality, angle—and then lie about it?
I would have preferred if the trending topics learned what I was interested in. I'm not averse to curation (either way), but I'd prefer that users were ultimately in control of their own filters. Even if that filter is "never show any politics, only show cat videos".
The problem is, as a private company, should Facebook choose to manipulate it's news feed algorithm to promote one candidate or the other, or for whatever reason, this would be its prerogative under the First Amendment. I personally choose to not use Facebook specifically for these reasons. Even though I know many Facebook employees personally, I don't trust it's employees to divorce their own interests and their pow…
What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be covered by those laws.
One defence Facebook might consider is to say that it simply reflects the preferences of its readers algorithmically. However, this article shows that is not the case, and that the company does exercise editorial judgement. Of course, the design of the algorithms is tacit editorialising anyway, so the whole point is moot to me.
While we are considering the fact that FB is a private company (actually a public company), some might be inclined to say that if users realise Facebook cannot be trusted, then they will leave the site causing its revenues to decrease. Other more honest and transparent competitors will take its place. However, in practise there are many reasons to think this won't happen, which is why we have special laws for the press in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks to a tool that specifically allows modifying the news shown to users and the alleged biases of curator contractors who seem to have no accountability checks.
I wouldn't say "no accountability checks." The article references instances where the curators were instructed to boost non-trending stories. So, they are being actively managed. And, presumably can be replaced easily if their curating deviates from Facebook's wishes.