Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#121

Post by supergarfield » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

grive wrote: post #114

welanes wrote: post #50

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…

> Click the Like button on a Page that challenges your beliefs, interact with that information and you'll see more of it. That's precisely the problem with it. I'd like to read more on extremists groups and see how and why they exists, what kind of people they are, why do they think the way they do, what their fight is in our society. This is the first step to build a dialog. However, "liking" their pages is out of q…

If liking is the problem, you can usually follow pages without liking them. You can also make your following list private.

However I think it's unclear what you will get from following a real extremist group, except if you like to see repetitive propaganda. Following a somewhat-reputable news source that's usually opposed to your views may be a better solution.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#122

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:29 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #116

Spooky23 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook wants to be a window on the world. But it's delivery is a takeout window that delivers Big Macs and potato chips.

its delivery

That's not a bad thing, but they've chosen to become a delivery truck for the id.

That's fine, but will ultimately kill the brand. Good riddance.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#123

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:29 PM UTC

noxToken wrote: post #109

pjc50 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. 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…

> inciting violence

I don't think there's actually a clear dividing line for this, especially when we consider "dog whistle politics" and things like the notorious "blood libel", Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc; there's definitely a category of material which is both false/misleading and intended to incite prejudice against a particular group - but stops short of mentioning actual violence.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#124

Post by matt4077 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:32 PM UTC

aikah wrote: post #17

andrewvijay wrote: post #6

> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…

> Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. Give me a break. It's not Facebook's job to tell the truth from the lies. They provide a social network, for profit. They are not a charity or a non profit. They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business. Now to anybody who thinks he can control the internet and what people read/think/d…

i wouldn't blame them in the moral sense of the word. But looking at the world today, it is obvious that something has changed. From Erdogan in Turkey, to Trump, Brexit, today's referendum in Italy etc, the is a definite trend.

Now some people obviously welcome this trend, but lets just assume there are a few who see this as quite frightening.

I've been debating the causes of this with friends, and it's actually quite murky. The US is running with the "too much identity politics" and/or "economic stagnation for the white lower class" as explanations.

The problem is that these simply don't work in other places: Germany is doing better than ever, economically. And even if you're unemployed, your basic needs are not in danger. Britain was doing fine, as well. Same for Turkey.

Germany has 1 Million Syrian refugees. But the US only took 10,000 and the UK haa half that.

The one mechanism that's universal is the change in media consumption. The media used to be controlled by the elites, who generally remained within the narrow window that's sometimes called "reality". Now, it's a free-for-all and groups have started to coalesce around any possible ideological bend.

Facebook is probably the central mechanism. People always seek the approval of their peers, and it has become so much easier to get that gratification, even if it's from people you rarely see in person.

Of course it'd be possible to change all that by "not using Facebook". But we all know it's impossible to change human nature. That's why people are grasping at ideas of how to inhibit this mechanism.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#125

Post by SuperPaintMan » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #101

jamespo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the primary function of a truck?

Does it matter? Weapons are where you find them. 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?

In Canada here we have a strange definition of a weapon (as opposed to firearm or otherwise). A object becomes a weapon when it is used with the intent to harm/kill someone. Or something close to that, prevents shenanigans trying to skirt the formal definitions.

For this reason some bikers carry hammers on their bikes, y'know incase repairs need to be done. In the case of Nice, a truck is inherently a weapon. Can't really regulate every truck though

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#126

Post by k-mcgrady » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

skuzye wrote: post #98

k-mcgrady wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit." No, people and politicians are killing democracy. People choose to get their news from unreliable sources. They act like they care about an issue yet only know the headline. But they can sign an online petition and post it on social media so they look and feel good. Politicians can openly lie on the largest of stages. When called out on it (which rarely happ…

How can you tell one reputable source from others? Better: how can you tell when one reputable source has a hidden agenda to slight push one way or the other without people noticing?

Personally I look at multiple sources. I try to focus on the least biased ones and then look at where the reports differ and presume that's where the bias lies.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#127

Post by paulryanrogers » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:39 PM UTC

GotAnyMegadeth wrote: post #94

flueedo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been off of facebook for years now, but I doubt nowadays most people see the "like" buttons as an instrument for teaching the website algorithms to help keep themselves open minded. (Assuming this stratategy indeed works, since it's known this isn't the only variable they consider) And I don't think this isn't the purpose of feed 'customization' either. It's about making money by assuring advertisers that their…

As a relatively heavy FB user, I use the like button as a "I've read this" button for my friend's comments and statuses, and not at all otherwise.

Perhaps FB would benefit from a check or looks-interesting reaction

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#128

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #106

Angostura wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Nutritional information is one of those areas dominated by "fake news", or at least overhyped dietary advice in the popular press. See e.g. http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ I wouldn't blame people for giving up trying to make sense of what foods are currently considered beneficial or harmful.

Um, we are talking about the nutrition facts label printed by the manufacturer, not the various stories the media hypes up about the nutrients themselves.

Even when the manufacturer posts the claim on the packaging, they have to use specific language indicating the claims haven't been verified by the FDA.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#129

Post by tux1968 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:45 PM UTC

skuzye wrote: post #98

k-mcgrady wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit." No, people and politicians are killing democracy. People choose to get their news from unreliable sources. They act like they care about an issue yet only know the headline. But they can sign an online petition and post it on social media so they look and feel good. Politicians can openly lie on the largest of stages. When called out on it (which rarely happ…

How can you tell one reputable source from others? Better: how can you tell when one reputable source has a hidden agenda to slight push one way or the other without people noticing?

Just assume every source has a hidden agenda and use your brain to decide what you think for yourself.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#130

Post by matt4077 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 1:45 PM UTC

tmptmp wrote: post #61

I am not a fan of FB but it must be understood that FB is not a news agency. Another thing to consider here is: FB may be wallgardened, but what about the mainstream news organizations that are sold out to various parties? (e.g. Saudi Islamists have many huge investments/shares in many mainstream news organizations) Many mainstream news organizations are worse than FB when it comes to spread lies and propaganda in th…

> am not a fan of FB but it must be understood that FB is not a news agency.

It doesn't matter what Facebook calls itself. It has power, and responsibility follows.

> The mainstream US media is suppressing any criticism of Islam under the flimsy arguments like racism and islamophobia

I believe there's plenty of it in the news. Syria has been a top story for three years running. Everyone knows how Saudi-Arabia treats women. Everybody knows who was responsible for Charlie Hebdo.

Beyond that, it's not in the news because (a) it's not "new" and (b) there is nothing gained from a collective mob against islam. Bombing doesn't help. Being condemned by Americans also doesn't change a single mind in the mideast.

Instead, you get the opposite. How many stories have we had about muslims being forced off airplanes because they spoke Arabic or "looked like a terrorist". Of course they're usually professors of philosophy who grew up in the UK and studied at Harvard.