11–20 of 121 posts
I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really started pushing for methods to censor their opposition.
I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really started pushing for methods to censor their opposition.
How do you draw the line between "alternative media" and "lies"?
[EDIT] (just to add something to my post)
If you delete/ommit/censor lies youd end up with:
a) If every lie is removed, maybe everything that was removed is a lie. Which is not true.
b) You end up with a "cry wolf situation", which may blow up hardly on facebook. You don't "cry wolf". You show that the wolf is there. Otherwise, the first time you screw up, you will lose all credibility.
I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really started pushing for methods to censor their opposition.
How do you draw the line between "alternative media" and "lies"?
I'm interested to see where the local news initiative goes. Big outlets have plenty of room to innovate with or without Facebook's help, but newspapers outside of state capitals seem to be in a difficult position of falling subscriptions and no way to replace that revenue online.
I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really started pushing for methods to censor their opposition.
How do you draw the line between "alternative media" and "lies"?
I'm a former journalist who used to work for a metro daily newspaper that has long suffered, as most newspapers have, from declining ad revenue.
For these papers, the only reason to partner with Facebook is because they feel they have little choice. They would much rather have a healthy revenue stream and be self-sufficient.
But so far, the news industry has not found anything that adequately replaces the print-ad-driven business model that served it so well for so long.
So they're willing to try just about anything -- including, apparently, accepting a dinner invitation from a reputed cannibal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Yesterday was a great example of mainstream sources losing credibility. They were all over the (as far as I know) totally unverified document that an intelligence agency decided to leak to Buzzfeed for some reason. They wonder why no one trusts them anymore...
The fact that mainstream journalists are caught letting political operatives write their articles for them doesn't help their credibility either. Oh, and they're of course silent when it comes to reporting on their own corruption.
...turns out it was because they were implicated in them.
I'm sure this will be used for censoring political groups, and alternative media. As mainstream news sources become less popular / reputable they have really started pushing for methods to censor their opposition.
Why are you lot so reflexively opposed to anything related to journalism, even when explicitly aimed to help alternative media? It certainly doesn't make it look like you just want people to get news from more sources.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/09/fo...