We Analyzed 100M Headlines
buzzsumo.com
We Analyzed 100M Headlines
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#2This is why democracy is broken.
Attention is scarce. So when you combine all the resources and effort that marketing departments from Fox News to Charmin toilet paper, add Facebook as a primary medium, throw iPhones and ADHD into the mix, the only tactics that work appeal to base instincts. Make something flashy, attention grabbing, and short lived.
When that happens to ALL information, there’s no place left for balanced thinking that doesn’t come to some immediate divisive conclusion that just confirms what you already believed. There isn’t enough attention to get depth or thought provoking material in and have it win in your A/B tests.
So what happens? Democracy loses as base radicalization is mechanically forced by the attention economy to win out.
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#3This is why democracy is broken. Attention is scarce. So when you combine all the resources and effort that marketing departments from Fox News to Charmin toilet paper, add Facebook as a primary medium, throw iPhones and ADHD into the mix, the only tactics that work appeal to base instincts. Make something flashy, attention grabbing, and short lived. When that happens to ALL information, there’s no place left for bal…
This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change.
So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information?
For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with detailed discussion there's a bigger, dumber one.
I would love someone to propose something radical, but the only new ideas I've heard are monarchy (from people that also tend to think minorities are a problem) which is terrifying, or Chinese style rule, which honestly sort of seems to be working? I have no idea, I'm a software developer, not a political theorist, but you have hit the nail on the head.
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#4This is why democracy is broken. Attention is scarce. So when you combine all the resources and effort that marketing departments from Fox News to Charmin toilet paper, add Facebook as a primary medium, throw iPhones and ADHD into the mix, the only tactics that work appeal to base instincts. Make something flashy, attention grabbing, and short lived. When that happens to ALL information, there’s no place left for bal…
This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…
> democracy does not work in a world with social media
Two misconceptions in one short phrase.
Democracy always worked perfectly well, just not as advertised, a common phenomenon with heavily advertised products.
Social media is just making things harder and more expensive for advertisers. They'll figure something out, with much groaning and moaning.
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#5This is kind of depressing and does not bode well for future information dispersal.
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#6Fascinating, if not depressing analysis of clickbait. I guess one of the sad takeaways is that people want to be told how to react when they read something (make you cry, give you goosebumps, shocked to see).
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#7A lot of unstated dubious assumptions. Is the headline decisive? I bet these headlines were accompanied by pictures; maybe that's the signal.
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…
> democracy does not work in a world with social media Two misconceptions in one short phrase. Democracy always worked perfectly well, just not as advertised, a common phenomenon with heavily advertised products. Social media is just making things harder and more expensive for advertisers. They'll figure something out, with much groaning and moaning.
How is it making things harder for advertisers?
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#9This is why democracy is broken. Attention is scarce. So when you combine all the resources and effort that marketing departments from Fox News to Charmin toilet paper, add Facebook as a primary medium, throw iPhones and ADHD into the mix, the only tactics that work appeal to base instincts. Make something flashy, attention grabbing, and short lived. When that happens to ALL information, there’s no place left for bal…
This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…
Here, I have a proposal for you:
Imagine a world government wherein the killing, torture, and imprisonment of people is illegal, as the core clause of the state. In this state, the core clause does not permit the interests of the state over those of the individual; the state exists to support an individual.
Imagine a political party which comes to power through the co-option of the public sphere to support the above goals, while preaching that this party alone is capable of bringing about the revolution. Imagine a single leader which is the beating heart.
Imagine this party preaching that the global economy must be reverse-engineered to adhere to the above-mentioned goal. Imagine that technical renaissance is trumpeted.
Imagine this totalitarian state and its transparent principles. Transparent enough to call itself totalitarian.
Now imagine the orange flag flying on the marble arch on a clear day.
Re: We Analyzed 100M Headlines
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fairly well understood, as is the fact that none of the parties involved - Facebook, the media, or the political parties - have an ounce of incentive to change. So, what do we do? It may be becoming apparent that the theory that democracy does not work in a world with social media is correct, but what can be done with that information? For every Buzzfeed you kill there's another, for every social network with…
Here, I have a proposal for you: Imagine a world government wherein the killing, torture, and imprisonment of people is illegal, as the core clause of the state. In this state, the core clause does not permit the interests of the state over those of the individual; the state exists to support an individual. Imagine a political party which comes to power through the co-option of the public sphere to support the above…
Sounds impossible on many levels, the least of which is absolute power corrupts absolutely. Laws to protect individuals are rarely the problem, from North Korea and China to Mexico and the US. People, positions of power, the lack of accountability, the distribution of problems and the unequal voices of those issues, the total cultural and reality differences between the great leader and the realities of everyone everywhere, trust, etc don’t get solved by the one true government.