Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy • Hacker News Board

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#81

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 5:50 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #78

smadge wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about rational actors is that their options are severely limited by the market. The publishers only choice is to follow the money and play the game or perish. And of corse complain about it.

I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander. I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from…

I agree with you on everything except for the part about "Medium is already kinda this".

Medium has also made the same mistake of introducing bias even though they claim to want to become a platform.

A lot of people see Medium as a place where a bunch of self-important people, wannabe activists, growth hackers, social justice warriors live.

You can see that by the type of posts they promote on their main page as well as their official Twitter account.

It's really hard to become unbiased when the organization has a clear owner. I am hoping that the new decentralized technologies will inspire some people to come up with a completely transparent and non biased system for true journalism.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#82

Post by hkmurakami » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 6:25 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #78

smadge wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about rational actors is that their options are severely limited by the market. The publishers only choice is to follow the money and play the game or perish. And of corse complain about it.

I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander. I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from…

WSJ (ignore most of their opinion pieces) and Economist are supported by rich people for the reasons you describe.

I stopped supporting NYT and the Atlantic once they became more sensationalist.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#83

Post by _rpd » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 6:28 AM UTC

0xbear wrote: post #73

Where by “impact on democracy” they mean impact on their ad revenues.

Yes, but also impact on their ability to generate and wield political power. Journalism is practically non-profit these days, but there'll never be a shortage of journalists looking to marshal the Fourth Estate.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#84

Post by _rpd » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 6:31 AM UTC

diogenescynic wrote: post #63

Facebook has gotten worse and worse to use. I’m still surprised it hasn’t gone the way of MySpace. Most of my friends don’t post nearly as much. I’m sure that’s partly getting older, but it also just didn’t seem fun anymore. Reading about all the the scummy stuff Facebook has done doesn’t thrill me either.

> it also just didn’t seem fun anymore

That's exactly why they are doing this experiment. To answer the question: will people come back if they don't have to wade through all this stuff they don't really care about?

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#85

Post by PhasmaFelis » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 6:32 AM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #69

This tells more about the journalists than Facebook. Facebook has always been the same. It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. They hav…

> Furthermore, it's funny hearing this hypocrisy coming from journalists, since they are the ones who are throwing away their "journalistic integrity" to make money. It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays.

That's certainly a problem with the media I'm familiar with, but it's all first-world western. Does the media in Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Bolivia, Cambodia, Serbia and Slovakia share those issues, in your experience?

I'm assuming you read the article and are aware that those are the only countries currently affected?

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#86

Post by PhasmaFelis » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 6:36 AM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #34

> The experiment, which began 19 October and is still ongoing, involves limiting the core element of Facebook’s social network to only personal posts and paid adverts. This is the Orwellian outcry? I'm much more concerned about the idea of everyone getting their news (especially passively) from Facebook and making Facebook some sort of "social network" instead.

The Orwellian part is that they rolled it out in Guatemala, where:

> Soy502 is a new site in an unstable democracy where journalists and civil society groups already face an uphill battle to be heard. “We currently have a smear campaign that is targeting journalists, which is really vicious, fuelled by interest groups who are against the anti-corruption drive in our country,” she says. “We are regarded in the region as a success story on new media for the digital age. This can destroy us.”

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#87

Post by rtpg » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 6:54 AM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #82

rtpg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander. I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from…

WSJ (ignore most of their opinion pieces) and Economist are supported by rich people for the reasons you describe. I stopped supporting NYT and the Atlantic once they became more sensationalist.

I wish that more people on the left would finance blatantly partisan outfits as efficiently as the right does. WSJ's opinion pieces (and some of their reporting too, to be honest) channel the Heritage Foundation way too much for my tastes.

The opinion pieces' use of fancy words tend to obscure the fact that it's filled with junk economics that only very few people actually believe in. Then you have all these people on the right defend themselves with this, and journalists accept it because surely one side of the political spectrum couldn't possibly be guided by lies.

Financing that does not make me a happy camper

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#88

Post by rtpg » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #81

rtpg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet there are some good opportunties for some concentrated journalism that people will find interesting enough to build a "proper business" untainted by as much advertising. The success of patreon has me believe that you could probably get enough rich people to pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander. I don't want to be too dismissive, but even though I like the coverage I get from…

I agree with you on everything except for the part about "Medium is already kinda this". Medium has also made the same mistake of introducing bias even though they claim to want to become a platform. A lot of people see Medium as a place where a bunch of self-important people, wannabe activists, growth hackers, social justice warriors live. You can see that by the type of posts they promote on their main page as well…

I don't really want an unbiased platform. I want a news source that accepts the postulates I accept. I don't want to read an interview with the Google Manifesto guy. I do want to read more things about labor issues, without the habitual "some people think that unions are actually bad!" stuff. I don't need the both sides fallacy, especially given the current state of politics.

You wouldn't want to read a defense of homeopathy right? Why do I have to suffer through denial of climate change, defenses of trickle-down economics, or "increased economic growth will counterbalance the tax cuts!"?

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#89

Post by interfixus » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 7:25 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #80

interfixus wrote: post #77

My visits to Zuckerberg-land are few and getting fewer. Mainly to pick up the occasional personal message and redirect it to a more civilized channel. And when I visit, I am heavily insulated by various sorts of filters - I never see ads or silly recommendations. So clearly, I'm in a bubble, and my ignorance is self-wrought, but honestly, I never get it when there's talk about people reading news - fake or otherwise…

Narrator: they do not.

And apparently, neither do several downvoters here.

Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy

#90

Post by hkmurakami » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 7:38 AM UTC

rtpg wrote: post #87

hkmurakami wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSJ (ignore most of their opinion pieces) and Economist are supported by rich people for the reasons you describe. I stopped supporting NYT and the Atlantic once they became more sensationalist.

I wish that more people on the left would finance blatantly partisan outfits as efficiently as the right does. WSJ's opinion pieces (and some of their reporting too, to be honest) channel the Heritage Foundation way too much for my tastes. The opinion pieces' use of fancy words tend to obscure the fact that it's filled with junk economics that only very few people actually believe in. Then you have all these people o…

Agreed that much of the WSJ's opinion pieces are basically trash wrapped in tinfoil. Also agreed that their front page articles have a noticeable fiscal conservative lean.

I'll still support them as my news source where I don't have to see vitriolic, polarizing headlines.