61–70 of 142 posts
I'd love to see companies that use an algorithm to create "feeds" also release a full explanation on how the algorithm works. I prefer a chronological feeds mostly because then I know I'm not being manipulated by an algorithm. Making in transparent would give me confidence in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really a valid comparison. Rachel Maddow is an anchor on MSNBC, which my guess is everyone has heard of. I know what Breitbart is but I don't know any of their writers by name.
Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a stat…
I wish it could be made illegal to optimise for engagement. “Engagement” their acceptable replacement word for what they really want to optimise for: Addiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really a valid comparison. Rachel Maddow is an anchor on MSNBC, which my guess is everyone has heard of. I know what Breitbart is but I don't know any of their writers by name.
Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a stat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really a valid comparison. Rachel Maddow is an anchor on MSNBC, which my guess is everyone has heard of. I know what Breitbart is but I don't know any of their writers by name.
Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a stat…
I think the commonality is that Rachel Maddow and the talking heads at Fox News aren't journalists. They spend their time telling their audiences how to think. They just do it differently.
If you want the news rather than someone telling you how to think you don't need either.
Btw Glenn Greenwald has reported about the biases of Rachel Maddow quite a number of times.
Worth reading the entire article, it's a great, if depressing read. I seriously wonder Facebook is up to the challenge here - they made algorithmic changes to make the news feed a better place and it very obviously failed. And yet they haven't changed a thing in reaction. Was anyone even looking? It all feels incredibly reactionary: make a change to answer your critics and then forget all about it until it becomes an…
Perhaps Facebook’s algorithms aren’t the issue. Maybe WE are the problem :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a stat…
Not sure why you’re being downvoted.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Rachel+M...
Jimmy is a Bernie guy by the way, not a Trump guy. I recommend any Democrat who is confident in their beliefs to spend some time watching him to see if your information feed might be overlooking some information or perspectives.
EDIT: it's interesting, although not surprising, that simply offering an alternative perspective results in downvotes.
Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
>I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. Only 15%? I'd guess it's way, way more. Like 90%. News today is primarily headline-driven. You don't have to sit down and watch the evening newscast anymore, you can just scroll through Facebook and see headlines and comments, which almost always drop context and nuance in a way that's engineered to make people upset. In a way, i…
News orgs are basically functioning as info amplification nodes on the network. The talking heads have assumed greater importance, than the journos who are painstakingly digging up info. This needs to be revered.
The metrics (likes/clicks/views/retweets/upvotes) that drive this behavior of the news orgs have to be rethought.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit etc could get together and propose a standard of what metrics are optimal to cause that reversal and then put them into effect.
Fox News dominates ratings on TV so its not surprising they'd be #1 - there's also the fact this is "engagements" and not click-throughs. I'd wager good 15% of these are probably people clicking "Angry" not actually engaging. If you look at "content with the most shares" not surprisingly Reuters and Patch tops the list. OP's headline presumes any algorithm should achieve left/right balance - this is just impossible.…
The Washington Post recently tightened up their paywall, too.