Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 209 posts

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#121

Post by mistermann »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #82
vinhboy wrote: post #2

> It’s also not Zuckerberg’s responsibility to solve a broken business model in journalism. (One could argue he has a moral imperative to do so, given his position of power, but that’s not the same thing.) That line is pretty much all you need to know about the article, despite what the title is claiming. In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact…

> If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. (You sure stirred it up with this one.) But it's not really true, is it? The better way to describe the situation would be to say that the ~35% at BOTH ends of the political spectrum only wants to hear and read "news" that confirms their biases. And "journalism," as a business, has given them that. What I'm…

As someone "on the right", I think you hit the nail on the head. At least for me, I have no problem at all admitting there are tons of faults among people on my side of the spectrum, seeing someone point out the same for the left is extremely rare.

Out of curiosity, which "side" are you on predominantly?

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#122

Post by ForrestN »

cylinder wrote: post #108
hxta98596 wrote: post #38

This is an odd editorial. The author stretches to explain how Zuck's Manifesto released this week could destroy journalism. But then she provides evidence that journalism is for all intents and purposes already dead. She cites a (possibly inflated) prime time news audience size of ~3 million people, and 1.5 million digital subscribers for the NYT...So less than 1% of America are using these previously major sources o…

I'm surprised the left has become so sympathetic to the corporate media all of a sudden. These people colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump. This was only a year ago.

What is your evidence that they colluded? I agree that the media in general (at all levels, not just the corporate media) disastrously failed us during the election. But I don't think anyone has proven that they "colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity," right?

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#123

Post by Oxitendwe »

jondubois wrote: post #118

Facebook is scary. It ought to be heavily regulated or nationalised entirely. The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. Once FB gets a monopoly on news, it'll be able to control everyone.

>The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic.

>It out to be nationalized entirely.

You don't think those two things are at odds with each other? Why do you think the federal government will be any more trustyworthy than Mark Zuckerberg? Not to mention that then it will have no incentive to improve or make a profit.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#124

Post by mistermann »

fmoralesc wrote: post #119
saurik wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be conflating facts and opinions. You correctly point out that people disagree on facts, but you don't seem to accept that even when people do agree on facts they can still disagree on opinion. I find this position dangerous, as it rapidly leads to the idea that, if everyone were equally in agreement of the facts, clearly they would all come to the same conclusions based on those facts. You have to draw a…

No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm arguing for a normative claim: when people agree on the facts, they should not disagree on opinion. It is obvious that as a matter of fact, they can disagree / but this 'can' is that of a matter of fact possibility, not one of 'absolute allowance'. People can come to believe their opinions are correct, but that doesn't make them so. We can, as a matter of fact, live with the fac…

> No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm arguing for a normative claim: when people agree on the facts, they should not disagree on opinion.

I'm confused, isn't that exactly what the parent's argument is though? You said that's not what you're saying, and then repeat the exact same thing, contradicting yourself.

Personally I disagree with you, if I'm understanding correctly. To me, a huge chunk of the population, you included it would seem, believes that some things are no longer a matter of opinion, that 10 and 20 years ago everyone would have happily agreed are matters of opinion rather than matters of fact.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#125

Post by douche »

badkungfu wrote: post #89
yummyfajitas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that ar…

> The idea of "fake news" is propaganda What do you call information that is produced to resemble reputable news sources but contains very little true information? Is there any support for the claim that it was reported, and a term was coined for it, in order to limit competition? Why should we think it's that vs genuine reporting on a trend where people profit from producing this material AND a complimentary trend f…

> What do you call information that is produced to resemble reputable news sources but contains very little true information?

The status quo.

That's why I can't watch any of the national news stations. Foreign broadcasters are less likely to pump things up, and some local news stations are passable, but the big boys have been transparently biased and driven by clickbait, since before clickbait was a thing.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#126

Post by mistermann »

kelnos wrote: post #46
RyanZAG wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions. Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free p…

I would like to agree with you, but if you get a large enough group that believes that fiction is truth, that can do a lot of harm to the people who actually do believe in facts. That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the gr…

> You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.

This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that have missed the mark, or are enforced unfairly.

A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem, because then both sides are not in a compromising mood, and that is what we need to accomplish anything.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#127

Post by mistermann »

kelnos wrote: post #47
hkmurakami wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Questioning our assumptions and commonly held beliefs (even facts!) should be encouraged as an integral part of intellectual discourse. I'm saddened by the current state of affairs where increasingly polarized factions feel that taking nuanced (rather than absolutist) positions threatens their positions and gives up ground to the opposition.

Questioning established beliefs and fact should absolutely be encouraged. But that questioning must be grounded in a good-faith, logical, reasonable belief that contrary evidence exists. When mountains of evidence are provided that support existing facts, and you are unable to come up with any persuasive evidence or avenues of research to contradict those facts, you are an idiot and have no place influencing or makin…

And what about the cases where there isn't a mountain of evidence supporting one side or the other?

At least from my observation, the general stance of most people is 100% complete belief in any partisan theory, and complete rejection of any opposing ideas, regardless of the amount of evidence supporting each.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#128

Post by mistermann »

macintux wrote: post #110
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can look at any situation and pick and choose what facts you want to care about, and that process can be extremely biased and misguiding, even though all the facts will be correct. It's not so cut and dry as facts vs. fiction. If things were that simple the problem would be easily solved.

It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction, but I think 2016 proved it's not easily solved. Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another. Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.

> It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction

No, it isn't. With complete sincerity I think you should make a serious effort to appreciate this possibility.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#129

Post by [deleted] »

dandersh wrote: post #104
yummyfajitas wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that ar…

No, fake news is a real and distinct phenomena from propaganda. Propaganda: The NYT, at the behest of the government, publishing reports of Iraq possessing WMD's in order to lay the groundwork for an illegal invasion and occupation. Fake News: A fabricated story about a made up individual finding boxes of ballots marked for Clinton, complete with a photo pulled from Google. The story then is pushed on social media si…

[deleted]

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#130

Post by mistermann »

pron wrote: post #52
RyanZAG wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions. Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free p…

Walter Kirn made a similar argument[1] which you may enjoy reading in Harper's, but it is a subtle argument. He writes: > So here’s to the freedom to be led astray, which it would be folly to restrict, lest it foster complacency and tempt the devil. Because that’s what attracts him: foolproof safeguards. Like the one the Clinton campaign erected when, per WikiLeaks, it encouraged the nomination of a laughable, beatab…

Great article, thanks. It's a bit comforting to see there are still some reasonable people in the media.
Post reply on HN