101–110 of 142 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> a country that elected Bush then Trump > Not very reassuring. You left out 8 years of Obama somewhere in there.
Bush and Trump on the other hand have been raising a lot of concerns. The first one for lying to his people to get to war and tell the UN to go to hell. The second one has just too many red flags to even begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Personally speaking, I would look elsewhere for a more in-depth and bias-free analysis for any business driven venture. Too much presumptions made in this article. Just that the way it defines “meaningful interactions”, "divisive" topics, “angry” reaction, etc. is rather unprofessional.
A better way is to define and characterize the users of these news postings and get statistical averages on the response time and intensity of responses as well as commonly used words/phrase in reply.
> the “angry” reaction dominates many pages, with “Fox News driving the most angry reactions of anyone, with nearly double that of anyone else.” So does this mean that Fox News is dominating the news feed because of liberal people hating on it, or is it because of articles that Fox News writes that riles up their base?
Also, they tend to use a lot more inflammatory language and wound-inflicting statements than those in the middle or near-middle.
That's why we should refrain from being either group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's healthier to avoid dividing everybody into two categories, and interpreting everything with respect to those. But to answer your question within your own worldview, it's both.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on other reasons that people would react with an angry emoji, aside from the two I described. Also, I’m not interpreting everything with respect to two categories — I'm interpreting single study this way.
To give an example, consider this current Fox News headline:
> New Zealand shooting's a social media wake-up call -- YouTube, others, must stop amplifying violent crimes
[A 'fox news conservative' sees that headline and leaves an angry emoji.] Is it because he's angry about the shooting? Or angry at Youtube/etc? Or angry because he thinks Fox news is cynically exploiting the tragedy to take pot shots at a tech company?
[A liberal sees that headline and leaves and angry emoji.] Is it because he's angry that Fox News is making it into his news feed? Or because he's angry at the shooting? Or angry at youtube/etc? Or angry because he thinks Fox news is cynically exploiting the tragedy to take pot shots at a tech company?
You really can't say. Any particular individual may have their own reason for posting an angry emoji at a headline like that. For a headline like that, it's quite possible for a liberal and a fox news conservative to have the exact same reason for leaving an angry emoji.
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.…
So people tell me Breitbart is a propaganda machine financed by political manipulators, but Fox is certainly run like a business. What is Fox doing to make their content free that NYT and WSJ can't t?
Common sense tells us that users should be responsible for what they post. If you post something illegal, you should pay the price, not the ISP, not Google, not Facebook. If users aren't held accountable for their own actions, then they'll continue to post abominable things. It should not the responsibility of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. to provide a safety net for the user.
The internet is like a virtual highway. Some people build roads, but it is the responsibility of the rest of us to learn how to use those roads safely and in accordance with the laws. We usually don't punish the road-builders for accidents (unless the road was built with malicious intent).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a country that elected Bush then Trump > Not very reassuring. You left out 8 years of Obama somewhere in there.
Obama was not a dangerous president from a European perspective. Bush and Trump on the other hand have been raising a lot of concerns. The first one for lying to his people to get to war and tell the UN to go to hell. The second one has just too many red flags to even begin with.