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

Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#71

Post by smokeyj »

toofy wrote: post #30

Seeing the top shared and engaged content in this article is pretty much the exact reason I and pretty much everyone I know abandoned Facebook long ago. It has been reduced to mostly just a place for people who are highly addicted to outragePorn clickbait. As the article says: > ...Instead, it’s often an angry, reactive place where people go to get worked up and to get scared. I haven't checked to see if this has bee…

It's funny how clearly people are addicted to outrage, yet also in complete denial about it. They don't see it as outrage, instead it's measured, proportional, and reactionary response to the opposition. It's the opposition that's addicted to outrage, not my team.

Unfortunately I think we've forged a new road to politics, we can call it "outrage marketing". The more the opposition is outraged, the more publicity you get - the more extreme candidates from both sides bubble up in popularity.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#73

Post by bonniemuffin »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #56
darkstar999 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article. "Angry" in this context is the Facebook reaction (such as the "like").

You are right, but that metric is even more meaningless. Fox New Headline ”Immigration crisis confirmed as 70,000 illegals pass into USA in Feburary - CBP” Guess what? People on the left and right both ‘ANGRY’ that for different reasons.

I think the point here is that the Angry reaction is a signifier of divisive content. Divisiveness gets people talking, so the metrics look good even though the discourse is unhealthy and tearing society apart on both sides.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#74

Post by Kye »

ModernMech wrote: post #53
jerkstate wrote: post #47

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…

The only reason I don't watch her show anymore is the endless drug company ads.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#75

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #54
matt4077 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny dog videos are “comfort food”. Fox News is hate porn.

Fox runs approx ~50% negative content on Trump. MSNBC run 92%+ negative [0] [1] [2] If your view of Fox News was largely based from 2008 and The Daily Show - How could you know? With a blanket statement like “Fox News is hate porn” you clearly aren’t seeking alternative viewpoints. This isn’t even getting into that you are lumping Fox NEWS and Fox News Channel Opinion Shows together which isn’t unfair to do so long a…

Just because Fox is 50% negative on Trump and MSNBC is 92% negative, doesn't mean in aggregate, Fox is less negative. There are other news topics, beyond Trump. Hard to believe, I know, but there are.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#76

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

matt4077 wrote: post #46
hgjwq wrote: post #6

If the top sites were nytimes, new yorker and bbc you would be very happy right? ;)

Those three are not the “left-wing equivalent” of Fox. See, for example, the media bias chart: https://www.adfontesmedia.com Left equivalents of Fox are Daily Kos et al.

Can we talk about how Fox News is literally at the intersection of the Yellow, Orange, and Red rectangles? For context:

- Yellow: Fair interpretation of the news

- Orange: Extreme/unfair interpretation of the news

- Red: Nonsense damaging to the public discourse

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#77

Post by kthejoker2 »

jaabe wrote: post #5
revskill wrote: post #3

Long time ago, my facebook newsfeed was full of my friends' sharing, it's been very useful place for us to keep friends update. But now, it's a different place. It's a place for ads, for livestream, for real "social" stuffs, but most of them is useless to me for what i use facebook for.

The Facebook news feed is dead to anyone but trolls, at least in my anecdotal experience. Facebook is only useful for its yellow pages function. Unfortunately that alone is enough to keep my social circle on Facebook. It’s just really hard to break away, because social circles consists of people with different social circles, and not everyone is going to replace Facebook with the samething, and then everyone is still…

Excuse me, do you mean white pages? I don't use Facebook for finding businesses.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#78

Post by sonnyblarney »

ModernMech wrote: post #53
jerkstate wrote: post #47

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…

The las time I watched Maddow was when there was some news coming out about Trump's possible hotel deal in Moscow, and how it ostensibly was canned in Aug 2017 and not April.

She was spinning a huge web of conspiratorial possibilities.

She's a brilliant advocate, well informed, and never 'crosses the line' - but she's definitely an advocate.

I'd listen to her more if she moved over to NPR or something along those lines.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#79

Post by pixl97 »

smokeyj wrote: post #71
toofy wrote: post #30

Seeing the top shared and engaged content in this article is pretty much the exact reason I and pretty much everyone I know abandoned Facebook long ago. It has been reduced to mostly just a place for people who are highly addicted to outragePorn clickbait. As the article says: > ...Instead, it’s often an angry, reactive place where people go to get worked up and to get scared. I haven't checked to see if this has bee…

It's funny how clearly people are addicted to outrage, yet also in complete denial about it. They don't see it as outrage, instead it's measured, proportional, and reactionary response to the opposition. It's the opposition that's addicted to outrage, not my team . Unfortunately I think we've forged a new road to politics, we can call it "outrage marketing". The more the opposition is outraged, the more publicity you…

Related video to watch: CGPGrey, This video will make you angry.

Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed

#80

Post by soheil »

koboll wrote: post #50
volak wrote: post #11

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…

> There's simply no professional awareness of the unbelievably damaging power of headlines

Some would say this is by design and not just on the part of newsmakers but actual politicians on both sides of the spectrum. For the system to work as efficiently as it does a bimodal distribution is probably the best way to achieve that. Every one may be better off at the end thinking both they have a voice, someone taking care of their issues, and elected representatives don't have to struggle to satisfy a never ending range of diversely opinionated electorates.

Post reply on HN