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

The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#201

Post by ForrestN »

spopejoy wrote: post #191
ForrestN wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I'm responding to this statement: "the corporate media [...] 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." The fact that career democrats feel strongly about the outcome of a democratic primary is not a corporate media conspiracy. Should there be reforms to the Democrats' primary process? Yes. Is…

But you don't challenge the central point. Just because major media collusion with [DR]NC is normal doesn't make it any less galling. In fact the only reason there is any complaint this time around is precisely because Bernie's candidacy was so unexpectedly strong. When Howard Dean was demolished (DNC-orchestrated with the full participation of the press) there wasn't nearly the backlash as he was just getting starte…

There certainly is a kind of mutually entrenching equilibrium between the major political parties and media conglomerates. There are certainly structural factors in terms of how our political and media systems work that arguably disfavored Bernie Sanders. The media believes that establishment candidates are most likely to be elected, and they therefor cover them more than candidates they deem to be less likely, such as Sanders. I think this is a perverse approach that distorts elections, but I have no sense that this is done in bad faith by the thousands of people who make editorial decisions like this every day. I can disagree with the conventions of political coverage in the United States without impugning the motives of an entire industry.

Further, the incredibly contingency of all of this means that we can't actually prove such vague cause and effect relationships. We can't know that the media unilaterally crushed Bernie's candidacy. Maybe if the media had covered Bernie more, it would have led to more scrutiny or some kind of gaffe that destroyed his campaign. Maybe if he had gotten one more news story he would have been reading it on his phone, slipped on a banana peel, and broken his neck. I have no idea if more coverage would have made Bernie more popular, or if the "the media is ignoring me!" narrative was actually a key engine of his campaign's growth.

Collusion means "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others" according to Google. DNC collusion is fair—there are arguments that this is less than nefarious, but I disagree with them. Multi-corporation media conspiracy with the purpose of anointing Hillary over Bernie? Still waiting to see any evidence of that.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#202

Post by erikpukinskis »

DenisM wrote: post #200
erikpukinskis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the printing press and the internet is that you and me could make a whole new Internet happen with just two $70 handheld computing devices. The printing press needed a newsroom with typists and ad salesmen and a team of people wrestling with an ink belching mechanical beast. The minimum corporate interest required to feed such a beast is substantially more than the Internet business, the physic…

Money still buys you a lot of upgrades to your $70 internet. Ad campaigns, talented copy writers, data scientist, psychologists, computing resources for data analysis, large training datasets, cross-channel promotion (e.g. internet + billboards), astroturfers, community management, marketing, focus groups. The amateur hour will come to an end. Especially now that the presidential election campaign has shown us how it…

I don't understand what your last sentence means, but it scared me for some reason. Like a threat?

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#203

Post by DenisM »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #202
DenisM wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money still buys you a lot of upgrades to your $70 internet. Ad campaigns, talented copy writers, data scientist, psychologists, computing resources for data analysis, large training datasets, cross-channel promotion (e.g. internet + billboards), astroturfers, community management, marketing, focus groups. The amateur hour will come to an end. Especially now that the presidential election campaign has shown us how it…

I don't understand what your last sentence means, but it scared me for some reason. Like a threat?

It means that all the viral news and memes stuff so far have been the work of amateurs. Now that the effectiveness of this approach was proven, well-funded professional teams will move in and drive out the amateurs. Same as it happened with newspapers.

It seems you are afraid, but you shouldn't be. The professionals are funded by big businesses, they aren't looking to take your life, they want you buy their products, and they want you to be happy while doing it.

It's really the same picture we've had for the last few decades, only the technology is a bit different. If you weren't upset back then, there is no reason to be upset now.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#204

Post by RyanZAG »

zo1 wrote: post #71
RyanZAG wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions. Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free p…

Because it's uncomfortable to accept. On the one hand, democracy is touted as the perfect system in terms of fairness. But then the intellectuals are not content with letting people choose how the people, their local communities and inspirational leaders have convinced them into voting. I.e. It becomes about controlling mind-share. Calling something out as "unfair", "biased", "propaganda", or "fake news" is one way o…

It's a shame you've been downvoted, but I think it just enforces your point on how uncomfortable it is for people to accept it.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#205

Post by erikpukinskis »

DenisM wrote: post #203
erikpukinskis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what your last sentence means, but it scared me for some reason. Like a threat?

It means that all the viral news and memes stuff so far have been the work of amateurs. Now that the effectiveness of this approach was proven, well-funded professional teams will move in and drive out the amateurs. Same as it happened with newspapers. It seems you are afraid, but you shouldn't be. The professionals are funded by big businesses, they aren't looking to take your life, they want you buy their products,…

Big business needs both a healthy consumer class and a poverty/continuously violated class to act as a "this is what happens if you are a bad consumer/employee" example to scare people into various kinds of compliance, and maximize profit/minimize wages.

It's comforting if you believe you can keep yourself and your friends out of that second category.

I keep making new friends in low places so that's not the case for me.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#206

Post by spopejoy »

ForrestN wrote: post #201
spopejoy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don't challenge the central point. Just because major media collusion with [DR]NC is normal doesn't make it any less galling. In fact the only reason there is any complaint this time around is precisely because Bernie's candidacy was so unexpectedly strong. When Howard Dean was demolished (DNC-orchestrated with the full participation of the press) there wasn't nearly the backlash as he was just getting starte…

There certainly is a kind of mutually entrenching equilibrium between the major political parties and media conglomerates. There are certainly structural factors in terms of how our political and media systems work that arguably disfavored Bernie Sanders. The media believes that establishment candidates are most likely to be elected, and they therefor cover them more than candidates they deem to be less likely, such…

I suppose the collusion is more guilt-by-association -- the DNC's tight relationship with major media means unfair activity on their part will be amplified in the press, and given the extremity of the bad-faith activities in this case, anger at the press is justified. But I concede that direct collusion is unlikely, and probably not even what folks are angry about if they choose their words carefully. Bernie's campaign tread over many sacred cows -- Palestinian rights on national TV?? Single-payer health care?? Labor?? (The press HATES labor!!) -- so add their institutional hostility to a left-wing candidate, and collusion isn't necessary.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#207

Post by cerved »

RileyKyeden wrote: post #87
cerved wrote: post #70

"One analyst told The New York Times last year that 85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google—leaving a paltry 15 percent for news organizations to fight over." I stopped reading here since the author obviously doesn't know what he/she is talking about and didn't bother looking it up.

The article in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-b... > Advertisers adjusted spending accordingly. In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising will go to Google or Facebook, said Brian Nowak, a Morgan Stanley analyst. I don't know if it's accurate, but New York Times citing an analyst at a major financial services firm seems more credible t…

Okay so look at the two quotes "85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google" and "85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising"

One proclaims that two companies take 85% of all online ad revenue, the other 85% of the growth in one quarter. So the first problem is the reference to the source is incorrect.

The other is the assumption that only news orgs and Google and Facebook are the ones taking a part of the pie. Disregarding the other hundreds of companies that are a part of the online advertising ecosystem as well as other types of publishers.

I would assert that the Atlantic misquoting a quote from the New York Times, which is a quote from a note a Morgan Stanley analyst wrote to clients the 7th of April 2016 is in and of itself not credible.

I don't know the real figures but one could calculate this by estimating global ad spend in 2016, take Google and Facebooks ad revenue minus the cost of revenue, ie money spend on buying ads from publishers (ie. news organisations etc), and compare that to other actors.

Bottom line, I refer to my previous point that the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#208

Post by kelnos »

mistermann wrote: post #127
kelnos wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Questioning established beliefs and fact should absolutely be encouraged. But that questioning must be grounded in a good-faith, logical, reasonable belief that contrary evidence exists. When mountains of evidence are provided that support existing facts, and you are unable to come up with any persuasive evidence or avenues of research to contradict those facts, you are an idiot and have no place influencing or makin…

And what about the cases where there isn't a mountain of evidence supporting one side or the other? At least from my observation, the general stance of most people is 100% complete belief in any partisan theory, and complete rejection of any opposing ideas, regardless of the amount of evidence supporting each.

Well, duh, then there's more room for doubt.

Look, we're talking about the difference between opinion and fact here. By its very nature, "fact" implies that you have enough evidence already that questioning that fact requires evidence of its own. If I hold some weaker opinion, then sure, it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion contrary to that without the burden of proof immediately being on you.

Re: The Mark Zuckerberg Manifesto Is a Blueprint for Destroying Journalism

#209

Post by kelnos »

mistermann wrote: post #126
kelnos wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to agree with you, but if you get a large enough group that believes that fiction is truth, that can do a lot of harm to the people who actually do believe in facts. That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the gr…

> You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet. This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that…

> A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem

Terminating the EPA entirely (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861) is not a "reasonable position".

Post reply on HN