[deleted]
The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
141–150 of 209 posts
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your evidence that they colluded? I agree that the media in general (at all levels, not just the corporate media) disastrously failed us during the election. But I don't think anyone has proven that they "colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity," right?
I'm not sure if I can link to wikileaks here but some of the emails showed collusion with the DNC in general and with the Clinton campaign in particular during the primaries. For an example, see the emails about the debate question leaked to the Clinton campaign for the primary debate in Flint, MI (although this was by someone, I think, hired by CNN who was later hired to head the DNC). https://www.washingtonpost.com…
Those very narrow allegations about one incident within the DNC are not the same as the entire corporate media colluding in Clinton's favor. I'm not happy about what the DNC did but it's not clear that swayed the outcome from an inevitable Bernie victory or that the DNC was part of a conspiracy with the media.
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I read through the FAQ real quick and did not see how this site in any way solves the two fundamental problems: 1.) Is what's reported actually true? 2.) Is what's reported only half the truth so as to advance a prescribed narrative?
It is important to make a distinction between what has been reported, and what is true. Nothing is added to our site unless it is sourced from a credible source and all news from even credible sources that has anonymous sources is tagged as "Rumor/Unsourced". So let's say a credible source reports, using unnamed sources, that the national guard is going to be deployed to round up illegal immigrants. So we would write…
I applaud the effort but reckoning "credible" seems like a tough proposition. How and by whom is the list of "credible" sources curated.
I wonder if there's some way to come up with content quality metrics for news based on pure reporting of as many of the facts available. Maybe something similar to the stack exchange type system.
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#144Crowd-sourcing news quality does not work. There's no ground truth. Google News is suffering from this. I noted on Wikipedia today, in a discussion of reliable sources, that I had searched for info about a Wikipedia topic with Google news search, with terrible results. The top three results were Algemeiner (Jewish), Breitbart News (alt-right), and Mondoweiss ("progressive and anti-Zionist"). This is pathetic.
> There's no ground truth.
You say that like it's a bad thing, but that's the nature of reality itself.
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#145This is an odd editorial. The author stretches to explain how Zuck's Manifesto released this week could destroy journalism. But then she provides evidence that journalism is for all intents and purposes already dead. She cites a (possibly inflated) prime time news audience size of ~3 million people, and 1.5 million digital subscribers for the NYT...So less than 1% of America are using these previously major sources o…
I'm surprised the left has become so sympathetic to the corporate media all of a sudden. These people colluded to stop a once in a lifetime opportunity in Bernie Sanders to help their friend and collaborator Hillary Clinton, and so we ended up with Donald Trump. This was only a year ago.
This going way over the line for politics on HN but I can't let it go. Everyone repeating the story you are pushing is robbing the Hillary supporters of their agency. I've voted for Democrats for years and years. I didn't view Bernie as a once in a lifetime opportunity. I saw him as way too far left for me.
I was clearly wrong on the relative electability of Hillary & Bernie, but I'm voted in the primary for the candidate that better represented my views. I didn't vote for Hillary because the DNC made me do it or the media lied to me. I watched their speeches, I read their websites, I watched the debates, and I decided I'd rather have Hillary than Bernie. That's it.
It's not a giant conspiracy, there's just a lot of rank and file Democratic voters that aren't all in on Bernie's worldview. If you want to make an argument for why I should be more in on the Bernie plan than Hillary's plan I'd hear it (I guess not on HN), but stop pretending like the majority of Democratic primary voters were duped.
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#146> It’s also not Zuckerberg’s responsibility to solve a broken business model in journalism. (One could argue he has a moral imperative to do so, given his position of power, but that’s not the same thing.) That line is pretty much all you need to know about the article, despite what the title is claiming. In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact…
I always get a chuckle when people mention the number of Pulitzers the NY Times has, Pulitzer himself was a master provocateur and spreader of yellow journalism, aka Fake News
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#147I just wish it was easier to find unbiased news. Just a list of facts no slant either way.
Maybe read at least 2 news sources for each story, one from each side of the aisle... it is very hard to be completely unbiased, apparently.
I think this is preferable. If everyone was more upfront with their bias, then it becomes incumbent on the reader to get a complete view. Sure, plenty of people would just read what they want, but that's ALREADY happening. At least there would be less denial about it.
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#148I recently saw a very astute analogy between Facebook and cigarette companies. I suspect that in some years there will be testimony about what Facebook knew, and when, with respect to the addictiveness of its product and its links to mental health problems. I'm quite sure they know how harmful their product is and that's probably behind a lot of this absurd "we're going to save the world" rhetoric. This whole fight e…
The information age seems to want for clarification of the 'old rules' of society immemorial. Addiction, theft, privacy, economic theory, etc. We don't seem to yet have clear articulation about how those rules should be newly applied.
A curious thought is that as facebook controls more and more information content it could become a kind of monopoly on the 'marketplace of ideas'. If the dreams of this manifesto were to come to pass, the marketplace of ideas would lack its own market forces and instead facts and ideas would be doled out by a single (corporate) directive force. Many of the principles of our democracy rely on that open marketplace of ideas, and would no longer function as we intend if that marketplace is not open. Can an object/company be too large/controlling within the marketplace of ideas that it becomes a governmental/societal obligation to break it up, as it does when a single player becomes a monopoly in an economic market?
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#149I recently saw a very astute analogy between Facebook and cigarette companies. I suspect that in some years there will be testimony about what Facebook knew, and when, with respect to the addictiveness of its product and its links to mental health problems. I'm quite sure they know how harmful their product is and that's probably behind a lot of this absurd "we're going to save the world" rhetoric. This whole fight e…
Except filter bubble is nothing unique to Facebook. Google has it, Amazon has it.
Anything showing "recommended" is creating a filter bubble.
Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism
#150Facebook is scary. It ought to be heavily regulated or nationalised entirely. The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. Once FB gets a monopoly on news, it'll be able to control everyone.
>The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. >It out to be nationalized entirely. You don't think those two things are at odds with each other? Why do you think the federal government will be any more trustyworthy than Mark Zuckerberg? Not to mention that then it will have no incentive to improve or make a profit.
Watch an NPR or PBS newscast once in awhile. Seems pretty balanced to me.