I don't get it, in the olden days where forums were popular everyone knew that the final say of the content in that forum was of the administrators. Now, however, we join a website we do not own, run by people we do not know, and expect them to what, do as we say? Yeah, doesn't work like that. I'm not supporting what Facebook does, but I'm not against it either. Like it, use it, don't like it, don't use it.
Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
101–110 of 144 posts
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was Facebook granted a government-sanctioned monopoly like Comcast was?
Does it matter where the monopoly came from? Honest question, I’m genuinely unsure myself
Easy answer: yes it does.
Think of something else like monopoly: money. Does it matter where your money came from? A drug network killing teenagers across the country or selling iphones to rich people. One makes you a criminal, the other makes you Steve Jobs.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#103I don't get it, in the olden days where forums were popular everyone knew that the final say of the content in that forum was of the administrators. Now, however, we join a website we do not own, run by people we do not know, and expect them to what, do as we say? Yeah, doesn't work like that. I'm not supporting what Facebook does, but I'm not against it either. Like it, use it, don't like it, don't use it.
The forums were/are usually catering to niches. Facebook is a behemoth. To many people, the internet is basically it.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I'm not sure what your whole screed about journaists has to do with the decision at hand. It's just a fact that one of the largest online audiences is on Facebook and that newspapers & magazines have to be present on that platform to get views. They can't really g…
The Web is an open platform. Facebook is not some big brother who has power to censor anything. People can type https://nytimes.com to go directly go to the new york times if they want. From Facebook's point of view, these media sites are nothing more than parasites that try to write sensational articles to mislead the public and get people to fight online. Users become unhappy because they get into unnecessary argum…
They have the ability to control what you see and do — they push content at you that drives their perception of engagement.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ho…
No, in fact I do want to read an interview with the Google Manifesto guy. I totally understand why you want to filter those out from your life, and I also want to filter a lot of things out of my life too. But that's our problem, not the media's. I think the job of journalism is to give you what needs to be heard instead of what you want to hear. Being unbiased is not easy so I think at least media needs to provide a…
You want to read an interview with the Google Manifesto guy not because it’s not propaganda but because it’s propaganda you agree with: massive political agenda, big claims unsupported by evidence or logic, designed to sound science-y to people without prior experience with the issue, etc. — that’s worse on every axis than the journalists you’ve been attacking.
This also neatly sums up why “tell every side” is the same disastrous pitfall it’s been since creationists were advancing it on USENET. Expertise and facts matter, and on many issues they’re very unevenly distrusted. On things like climate change, evolution, etc. increasing the number of sides is simply increasing the number of known-incorrect things you’re exposed to, and most people lack the time or background to tell them apart, especially when many of them are actively being gamed by people who stand to profit from spreading those falsehoods.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I'm not sure what your whole screed about journaists has to do with the decision at hand. It's just a fact that one of the largest online audiences is on Facebook and that newspapers & magazines have to be present on that platform to get views. They can't really g…
The Web is an open platform. Facebook is not some big brother who has power to censor anything. People can type https://nytimes.com to go directly go to the new york times if they want. From Facebook's point of view, these media sites are nothing more than parasites that try to write sensational articles to mislead the public and get people to fight online. Users become unhappy because they get into unnecessary argum…
>And I would say it's a good thing even for the media because essentially they are being cut off of access to the race to the bottom that's killing them.
I would completely agree if it wasn't possible for a media page to pay to have their posts back in the news feed again. Which it is.
If FB was genuinely trying to "make users happy" then I'd be more charitable. But they're not. They're trying to monetise more.
As a publisher affected by this test, it was a nightmare. All our users are on mobile, and use FB as their search engine. We saw a ~75% drop in engagement for the main site affected by it.
Yes, people can type a url into a browser. But they don't. they scroll their newsfeed.
Our choices are: take FB head-on trying to get engagement with our users outside FB, or pay FB to regain our old levels of engagement. Not fun.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#107Earlier 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…
> pay (say) $50/month for a news source that feels less of a need to pander
That's about the price of a print subscription to the Financial Times, who are dry but reliable with good worldwide business-focused coverage.
> I'm still financing a bunch of think pieces on the fashion industry, their cooking apps, "78 hours in X" articles, movie reviews, Bret Stephens op-eds
That kind of stuff unfortunately pays for the serious stuff like the opioid crisis coverage.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#108This 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…
> It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money.
Nobody goes into journalism for the money, the pay is terrible.
> It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays.
Is this actually possible? Does believing in e.g. global warming constitute bias?
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#109This 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…
> It's journalists who sold their soul so that they can make money. Nobody goes into journalism for the money, the pay is terrible. > It's impossible to come across a mainstream publication with unbiased point of view nowadays. Is this actually possible? Does believing in e.g. global warming constitute bias?
Just because the pay is bad doesn't refute the point that they haven't sold their souls, it's a race to the bottom where selling out for terrible pay is preferable to having integrity for no pay.
Re: Journalists decry Facebook experiment's impact on democracy
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Web is an open platform. Facebook is not some big brother who has power to censor anything. People can type https://nytimes.com to go directly go to the new york times if they want. From Facebook's point of view, these media sites are nothing more than parasites that try to write sensational articles to mislead the public and get people to fight online. Users become unhappy because they get into unnecessary argum…
>And I would say it's a good thing even for the media because essentially they are being cut off of access to the race to the bottom that's killing them. I would completely agree if it wasn't possible for a media page to pay to have their posts back in the news feed again. Which it is. If FB was genuinely trying to "make users happy" then I'd be more charitable. But they're not. They're trying to monetise more. As a…
Yes, people can type a url into a browser. But they don't. they scroll their newsfeed.
They don't ... for your site.
You know how often I see Hacker News on Facebook? Never. Yet I visit here regularly. Same for reddit and many other sources of news.
You know how often Breitbart links appear in Facebook or Google News? Never. Yet it's the 49th biggest site in the USA according to Alexa.
Our choices are: take FB head-on trying to get engagement with our users outside FB, or pay FB to regain our old levels of engagement. Not fun.
Isn't that cookie-jar thinking, just like cocktailpeanuts says? You got large amounts of free advertising and referral traffic for a long time. Very few businesses benefit from that sort of thing. Now you're back to having to get loyal users the old fashioned way, or you can pay for that traffic in the manner of traditional advertisers.