111–120 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
just like tv, radio and newspapers. perhaps even churches, temples and mosques... though that might be more controversial to say.
There always another radio, newspaper, church. There's really only one Facebook, and it's now how you get essentially all of those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
just like tv, radio and newspapers. perhaps even churches, temples and mosques... though that might be more controversial to say.
There always another radio, newspaper, church. There's really only one Facebook, and it's now how you get essentially all of those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get away without people when you have a set list of sources like google news does.
They did this previously. The problem was that this disqualifies most news outlets operating on the fringes of reality. Since this includes most of the favorite news sources of tea-partiers it obviously can't stand. I don't particularly like the Democratic party, but any news site labeling itself as "right wing news" is for nutters. Facebook censored those sites and the nutters got angry and that's how we got here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get away without people when you have a set list of sources like google news does.
They did this previously. The problem was that this disqualifies most news outlets operating on the fringes of reality. Since this includes most of the favorite news sources of tea-partiers it obviously can't stand. I don't particularly like the Democratic party, but any news site labeling itself as "right wing news" is for nutters. Facebook censored those sites and the nutters got angry and that's how we got here.
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…
> What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algorithm says that challenging articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue? Couldn't a newspaper that uses algorithmic metrics (or any kind of metrics or surveying) end up making a similar editorial d…
The point here is that this is all being funneled through one filter. And many media / news companies may disappear over time so the issue could become worse.
Number and variety of sources of information is the distinction.
I think your analogy would apply if there were many "Facebooks". But there is only one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that you should discard your integrity in the pursuit of money, or even that that is to be expected, is quite damaging.
I don't see where anyone is discarding integrity. Not all content is appropriate for all sites. Beyond that, while this is a famous picture, what most people think they know about it is wrong, so it's not really adding much to the public discourse.
It takes integrity to defend a principle in lieu of doing the expedient thing of instilling a "zero tolerance" policy. One that you can define so broadly that you never have to suffer the PR backlash that will eventually result when someone takes advantage of these freedoms and does something abhorrent.
>Not all content is appropriate for all sites.
But I thought that all content is appropriate for all sites. Don't all people fit into size 36 jeans, like cheesecake, ride unicycles, and love to go hiking? I quite like your negate the absolutes game.
>Beyond that, while this is a famous picture, what most people think they know about it is wrong, so it's not really adding much to the public discourse.
That is a rather banal statement. It is obvious that the argument isn't about one particular picture, but about defending freedom of expression.
Nobody complains, nothing is likely to change, things stay the same. I'm on the side of complaining. You?
> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself included, on a number of levels." Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users. > "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position because you deserve it." A…
I don't know if I agree with the outrage at Facebook. They are out to make money. They can make more money if they avoid controversy and keep their site a place that brands like to be associated with. It results in corporate censorship for sure, but is it Facebook's responsibility to provide a censorship free platform? I fully agree with people taking note and becoming aware that Facebook is simply a business providi…
For those who don't understand why this is relevant: the important point is that Facebook was never, is not, and will never be meant for dispersing information and fostering meaningful discourse. Its only raison d'être is entertainment and generating revenue for its shareholders, so it's rather pointless to try to fight their arbitrary rules.
If you are trying to bring up meaningful discourse on Facebook, you're not getting the right audience, because Facebook is all about reinforcement of the user's existing believes and world views.
I have friends and ex-colleagues who hold different political views than me. I virtually never see their posts on Facebook, because algorithm and machine learning. And I'm aware of that fact when I use Facebook.
Afterposten is in the media business, they understand the unwritten rules. Call me a cynic, but I feel that the only point of their open letter is to sound righteous and generate publicity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There always another radio, newspaper, church. There's really only one Facebook, and it's now how you get essentially all of those things.
Its how some people get all those things. Not people who care enough to get their news directly from a number of sources, instead of via the Facebook filter.
A VIP reason to have popular alternatives to services like those provided by the likes of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter that are not controlled by monster corporations.
A very important person reason? Also, I think the actual problem isn't these corporations, it's ultimately the governments of the world. Even if the major social networks allow something highly controversial to remain, sooner or later they may be required by the government to take it down. Even someone as big as Apple will have trouble standing their ground, as was shown recently. The government and the law is what's…