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

Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#91

Post by mrweasel »

partisan wrote: post #8

The article is placing the blame on Google and Facebook when it should be placed on us, the "consumers" of media. We need to take a look in the mirror and understand who we are and what we want. Ask yourself. Really ask yourself: - What kind of information am I looking for and why? Am I just a digital rubbernecker? Do I want to break this story at the watercolor? Or do I need to know if a loved one was hurt? - Do I n…

>Do I need to know shortly after an event occurs

The traditional media is pushing "minute-by-minute" news pretty hard as well, but you're right in that people would rather have information right now, instead of correct information in a little while. The result is misinformation, deliberate or not, and some times that flawed information will taint the debate afterwards.

I can understand people wanting to know if loved ones are safe, and Facebook is actually helping in that regards, but there needs to be a delay on information, long enough to get verification.

Believing that Google, YouTube and Facebook are to blame for low quality information is missing the point. Twitter and Facebook for instance have often been the source of truthful and detailed information faster than the tradition media. Likewise tradition media as also contributed to the spreading of false information. Often this isn't deliberate, but because journalists are getting increasingly worse at their job. What I believe is happening is that journalists are upset that they can just sit at their desks, cruising the internet and cover stories that way, because they aren't capable of disseminating the incoming the information they read on the internet.

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#93

Post by teaneedz »

pjc50 wrote: post #87
kashprime wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be trivial for FB and Google to allow tailoring of feeds. Even keyword exclusions or subject filters would be a huge step-up from the gamified engagement-getting monster that we have now.

Yes - which is why they won't do it. Like out-of-order feeds, where engagement conflicts with usefulness they'll pick engagement and ad views every time.

I'm ready to walk away from all algorithmically sorted feeds.

I'm tired of the ad tech kool aid that causes PMs + execs to consistently put UX and users in last place.

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#94

Post by JustSomeNobody »

folksinger wrote: post #5

The reason why those of us on this forum can tell the difference between good and bad information is because we received a good education and learned critical analysis skills. Facebook, Google and the internet in general are an objectively bad source of knowledge. They are subjectively good sources of knowledge. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge. The…

Intelligence does NOT prevent one from falling for junk news. I know way to many intelligent people who believe ridiculous stuff for this to in any way be true.

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#96

Post by intended »

rdiddly wrote: post #49
Spivak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> into a spot that many users believe is fairly authoritative I mean that's the real issue. You can't be unbiased while trying to be a source of truth. You can be impartial and return results based on relevancy or you can intervene in an attempt to return the truth. Google has ventured into dangerous territory by mixing the two -- especially with their automatic snippets that answer questions. > There is only figurin…

The unfiltered results ARE the truth. 4chan is the truth. In the sense that "Someone posted this thing on 4chan." And that's the only truth there is in internet-land: Someone posted something. Is it real? Is it true, what they posted? Or is it "fake news?" You will never know, and you probably shouldn't try to take it that far. Or if you do, at least be able to handle the cognitive dissonance of believing it and not-…

> The unfiltered results ARE the truth.

No.

Using your structure - those are not the truth.

They are the first result thrown up out of a search engine. Just as much as "someone posted this thing on 4 chan".

This is not truth, any more than

"pull the trigger and kill Godot when he enters the room" are words in a sentence.

Truth is intriniscally lined to meaning.

You are implying that people are entering search terms into a search engine expecting the results to be a form of interprative art.

That is not what people are searching for - in this day and age.

Maybe during the days of alta vista or geopages, when most people knew the results were junk - and you were an advanced tech users, that would hold more on a probabilistic basis.

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#97

Post by intended »

trgv wrote: post #11

I think there's already too much filtering. People need to make up their own minds regarding what is true and what isn't, what's worth their time and what's bullshit, which links to click on and which to avoid. If people can't handle this then we need to spend more money on education, or just accept that some people disagree with us. I don't think aggressively filtering "untrustworthy" content will lead to a net bene…

In other words:

We have free will, and the incidentals effects on that exercise of free will have no other effects on our life and larger society - ie the exercise of free will has no effect on the larger world itself, and so we need not look further.

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#98

Post by ubik »

timmytwotime wrote: post #95

The real crime is that there is an assumption of companies with their own self-interests at the forefront are somehow benevolent arbiters of information on the Internet. This shows more the naive crassness of the media.

Nailed it. Exactly on what timeline do these people think these megacorp clickfarms were constitutionally/divinely designated as arbiters of truth? They have always been run by trash-purveying ad companies and have always been corrosive [1].

[1] https://www.anxiety.org/social-media-causes-anxiety

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#99

Post by ubik »

candiodari wrote: post #57
magicalist wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can be impartial and return results based on relevancy I don't think that's possible. Take a search for "Las Vegas shooting". What is the impartial process for deciding the most relevant result for that? Relevance is inherently editorial.

So first "top news spot" means that if you searched for the name of this person who got falsely accused on 4chan, you found the false accusation on 4chan (as the first result). That's all. Calling this a "top news spot" ... I have no words. Perhaps we should say that this complaint is "fake news" ? I get that newspapers and even journalists have their existence threatened by Facebook and Google, but ... this is a low…

This is entirely a blown-up issue that is being used as a cover to start censoring and monitoring our communications on a far worse level.

Re: Google and Facebook Have Failed Us

#100

Post by intended »

xvilka wrote: post #19
folksinger wrote: post #5

The reason why those of us on this forum can tell the difference between good and bad information is because we received a good education and learned critical analysis skills. Facebook, Google and the internet in general are an objectively bad source of knowledge. They are subjectively good sources of knowledge. The vast majority of people do not have the skills to use the internet as a source for good knowledge. The…

It was like this in the time of every morning, midday and evening newspaper as well. Still not a reason to introduce, moreover to actively encourage censorship. While this particular case may be true, those in power will just use this precedent as an example, more and more. It is like a tiny hole in water barrier, at first it is small, then it will grow larger as some people would want to justify more "filtering", mo…

This is the old school moderator answer from back in the day when the net was young.

I.E - the old school binary censorship "block/ do not block" - let people decide

The update to this is that censorship is ALREADY happening without explicit actions by parties which want to do right.

The strategy is to saturate the pipe.

After time on the net, the concept of signal vs noise has been advanced enough that we can now just override the signal, by pushing enough noise.

You are talking about small holes, while you are already surrounded by a deluge.

Once twitter and facebook took off, this was a done deal.

The issue is frankly one of communication strategies (and not even meta-communication, this is from propaganda playbooks).

With enough automation, its possible to saturate the pipe.

Humans are built with limitations, for example short term memmory, suited for 5-7 "objects".

You don't need to resort to explicit censorship anymore.

Post reply on HN