101–110 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know in France they allow people to rent trucks? A lot of people don't share your irrational fear of guns.
What's the primary function of a truck?
The Nice attacker used no firearms and killed eighty-six people. The DC attacker used a firearm and killed no one. Is it possible that firearms aren't really the problem here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ignorance is killing democracy. No it is worse. Misinformation is killing democracy. And that's exactly where Facebook is a problem.
Basically you might as well say that's why the internet is a "problem".
That's yet another reason why it's the next AOL.
Why anyone and especially facebook should care about fake news is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is this different from news sites? I thought that was very clear from reading the article. FB tailors the feed to each user making sure that they don't see things that they may not like. In contrast to that, news sites cater to large segments of the population and they have to in order to be economically successful. The result is that news sites will always present us with some amount of material that is contra…
> FB tailors the feed to each user making sure that they don't see things that they may not like To be honest, they do a really terrible job at this. No matter how many times I flag the Kardashian-story-of-the-week as offensive or inappropriate, they keep showing up in the news feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are asserting themselves only as a business and not emotional influencers...The emotional influences that facebook brings in people is very powerful. The same could be said of TV networks, Spotify, Twitter, Google photos. We are the catalyst that turn stories, music, photos into emotional reactions. We control the dials. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to step outside our bubbles. Click the Like button on a…
> My online shopping recommends groceries for me based on my past purchases. If I was to contract scurvy because it keeps recommending donuts instead of orange juice who is ultimately responsible? If your online shopping kept erroneously labelling the donuts as 'low fat and sugar and high in vitamin C' who would be responsible?
I wouldn't blame people for giving up trying to make sense of what foods are currently considered beneficial or harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the bigger question as far as I've come to think of it: is a for profit company compatible with the role facebook is filling?
While it appears as though your question is framed to get the answer that a non-profit could do Facebook's task better, there are other options. The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? There are other for-profit models that can work. A simple variation is not to use algorithmic presentation of the news feed at all and allow users to select the news they want to see, and to show all the news ab…
I understand the value of this question but it's not the core of the problem as I understand. Consider the progression of facebook as a platform. I hope my lack of eloquence won't hurt my point too much, not a native english speaker. Facebook was a valuable service when keeping track of one's social circle was still an analogic problem. Since we the public saw the value in digitizing the 'book keeping' of socialisation, we invested time into the platform to constitute a social group, architected as we saw fit. This at least was the experience of the early days of facebook for me and people I know. I imagine you share it to some degree. Compare that function to what the same company is pushing now. Their business is still acquiring user's time but they now have pivoted enough that the social book keeping aspect is quite secondary to most of the business layer of the company as far as I can tell.
I have no business analysing whether focusing on information diffusion control is a good strategy for Facebook the company, I have no idea. The point that concerns me is that the users are now chained along because of time invested in the past.
We as users should insist on having the social book keeping available as a low level (open source/GPL/WTFPL) platform on top of which one could choose to enhance that experience as is the business of information outlets. I have no issue with companies choosing profit over UX, but we the public should protest in some form or other while we still more or less have a choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are asserting themselves only as a business and not emotional influencers...The emotional influences that facebook brings in people is very powerful. The same could be said of TV networks, Spotify, Twitter, Google photos. We are the catalyst that turn stories, music, photos into emotional reactions. We control the dials. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to step outside our bubbles. Click the Like button on a…
Like Uncle Ben once said: "with great power comes great responsibility."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are asserting themselves only as a business and not emotional influencers...The emotional influences that facebook brings in people is very powerful. The same could be said of TV networks, Spotify, Twitter, Google photos. We are the catalyst that turn stories, music, photos into emotional reactions. We control the dials. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to step outside our bubbles. Click the Like button on a…
> Page that challenges your beliefs .. and doesn't insult the reader or insult their intelligence. That's the hard bit. The stuff that goes round on facebook is often both hyper-partisan and low quality, because people are sharing it for group-belonging purposes not for use as facts. I'm having this trouble with some of the causes that I agree with; how do I say "I see what you're trying to do and we're on the same s…
This is only tangentially related.
This is why the pieces lambasting Tomi Lahran saying that views like here don't deserve a platform are, in my opinion, wrong.[0] It was the 2nd second result after searching for that interview, and I've seen it shared around the Internet.
When opposing views that aren't inciting riots, violence, etc. aren't allowed to speak, all you get in an echo chamber of things you want to hear[1]. If everyone agrees, there is no incentive for you to examine your beliefs[2].
[0]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trevor-noahs-interview-w...
[2]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMil...
Anyone know possibly why there is these differences or can explain exactly what's going on here?