Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

I don't believe he is in denial at all.

In fact the article strikes me as more of the same reason why so many voted for Trump. The people who write these articles just can't accept the idea that people didn't vote for Trump unless they were tricked into it, or were fed lies. The idea that because they have a different reality they based their votes on never occurred to them.

What fake news do is reinoforce what people already believe to be true which is quite another discussion and anyone who have been debating with some 9/11 truther knows that no amount of data will convince them of anything else and neither are you going to be convinced it's suddenly true even though we all have been bombarded with claims from friends.

Also maybe my facebook feed is different, maybe my friends are different but I had and still have plenty of disagreement in my feed plenty of articles pointing both ways.

Here is a good example from my feed.

https://cl.ly/1b1s2W2w0G0c

Basically a four year old history surfaces which is wrong and look at the articles underneath.

I have seen plenty of examples of that. But maybe my feed is unique.

Facebook has 1.79B MAUs, and users do not inject enough self-generated original content into the system to make Facebook consistently interesting for those 1.79M MAUs. Therefore their links to outside sites – good and bad, and it isn't particularly simple to decide – will continue to be core to Facebook's business.

I always find it funny when I see HNers complaining about The Wall Street Journal's paywall. Pay it, man! And read the news.

Too much emphasis on Facebook's alleged influence. It's a link/aggregation/search application, and the complexion of its output is strongly going to reflect what users input.

I've mentioned this before in another thread. It does not matter if it was less than 1% of facebook content. The problem is, it's also every where else. Have you guys seen the front page of Yahoo lately? And also, some how this crap crept into my Google Now news feed. Probably because I visited a dumb link on Reddit. I had to manually block them. But that probably means people who regularly read this crap, gets a ton of them.

I wouldn't call it propaganda, but as a foreigner it was amusing to read the NYT front page on election day. There was no attempt at neutrality whatsoever.

(The NYT has no obligation to be neutral and I'm not complaining about their editorial position. They have a right to take sides. It is still useful to keep their previous positions in mind when analyzing what they're saying now.)

> The Macedonian teenagers found this, too. They had experimented with left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content, but gave up when they found it wasn’t as reliable a source of income as pro-Trump content. But even if Mr. Zuckerberg were right and fake news were equally popular on both sides, it would still be a profound problem.

Perhaps because the market was already saturated with pro-Hillary pieces from mainstream media? If they produce only one-sided hit pieces on Trump, are you surprised those on the right will share anything positive they can find?

The left has made it's own bed.