It's still wild to me Fox News, with its 18.5M followers is still following its boycott of Twitter, and hasn't tweeted since last November.
Neither has Fox News Politics, (2M followers) or Fox and Friends (1.3M followers).
Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
131–140 of 142 posts
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#132I realized my friends didn’t use Facebook. I didn’t use Facebook much. It was just ads and pages posting crap that played with my emotions. I kept Facebook so I could message a friend if I was in their city and we could meet. I held my account for years in that hope. I then realized I haven’t messaged anyone for a year. I mostly use other channels. I deleted Facebook and been happy ever since. My entire circle of friends is mostly Facebook zombies.
My prediction is it will be a generational thing. Kinda like how young people really don’t buy that much jewelry compared to their parents
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia itself is quite biased. Some domains are even banned despite providing real news with original reporting.
Know where to find that list? I googled around and couldn't get it.
No sources are actually blanket "banned". Some exceptionally bad ones like the Daily Mail are "deprecated", but that does not mean it can't be used anywhere ever. For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... (there's a legend at the bottom)
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#134Earlier 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…
My Facebook news feed is fine. I actively unfollow (hide all from) almost all shared third-party content (including news) so that I mostly only see original content from my friends and family.
I don’t follow anything that isn’t people I know and meet at least semi-regularly in the real world. I’ve actively unfollowed a few of them (shhh), but my feed can go a few days with no updates from the 90 people I’m down to.
But of course that’s my anecdotal view. I just never saw the point in following a company or a news paper on a social media.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#135Fox 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.…
What about NPR? BBC? Those are free and fairly unbiased.
BBC has a well-documented centre-right status quo stance. They're pretty consistent about it, so at least you can mentally adjust for it.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#136Fox 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?
Disney is acquiring Fox News effective within a month.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Know where to find that list? I googled around and couldn't get it.
No sources are actually blanket "banned". Some exceptionally bad ones like the Daily Mail are "deprecated", but that does not mean it can't be used anywhere ever. For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... (there's a legend at the bottom)
They are banned. Search your list for "blacklist". Note that the blacklisted sources are only on one side of the political spectrum -- not one thing on the other side got blacklisted.
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#138Fox 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.…
[flagged]
has the biggest army in the world
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Disney is acquiring Fox News effective within a month.
That was spun off, and not sold to Disney
Re: Facebook’s algorithm change has spurred an angry, Fox News-dominated News Feed
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
No sources are actually blanket "banned". Some exceptionally bad ones like the Daily Mail are "deprecated", but that does not mean it can't be used anywhere ever. For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per... (there's a legend at the bottom)
They are banned. Search your list for "blacklist". Note that the blacklisted sources are only on one side of the political spectrum -- not one thing on the other side got blacklisted.
Oh, you meant Breitbart and Infowars? Those can still be used, but require whitelisting; so still not a ban. You can read the linked discussions for more information. Not gonna rehash and spell it all out for you here. I wouldn't say two instances are a pattern of anything, but going by your logic, guess that side of the spectrum just has more history of spam and persistent abuse on the English Wikipedia.