3 ms·

I agree with you ddingus. Even if a comment section is flooded with nonsense the chance to read an insightful or funny comment still exists, and I'd rather be t

I agree with you ddingus. Even if a comment section is flooded with nonsense the chance to read an insightful or funny comment still exists, and I'd rather be the one who decides what adds to the conversation. Whilst I'd be interested to know how this experiment from Vice plays out, the main concern I have is over editorial bias. Sometimes interesting ideas are expressed poorly, do these make the cut, and is it the substance or the way in which they are expressed that gets commented on? Also, will we lose out on some of the funny comments that are only funny in context? Will have to wait and see how diverse the feedback section turns out to be.

ddingus 11y ago
Yes, exactly. I have a love hate with editors these days. Back when communications were largely broadcast, and largely one way, editors really mattered. We needed them to make some sense of the limited resources, and we were in a more firm position of forced trust. Think national TV anchor in the 60's kind of thing, though many examples abound. Today, it's much different. We don't really require standards and news has gone to a for profit, entertainment model. I would reluctantly argue that is a good thing, but not by much, and only because we also got the Internet. The Internet brought checks and balances to the political dialog. Say a cable host just isn't based in reality somehow. Doesn't matter who. Just that they are. Today, that's not hard to find out, unless one is tuned into just a few one way channels. Then it's a bubble. So there is that. Of course, the other bias is that commentary critical to the entity itself. Big companies are crappy at owning errors and failure. They just don't do it. When is the last time you got good, solid reporting on the FCC and whatever decency or other rules it may be contemplating, for example. Net Neutrality as another one? People to people, largely driven by people who really cared and took the time to help others understand well enough to care, and John Oliver who is awesome, got the latter out there. John with, "cable company fuckery" and HBO who really only cares about profit seem to work. But the major news outlets don't seem to work. Vice runs a lot of material that people would want to comment about, and I fear that bias may actually not bring us real commentary, and that would be a shame because Vice seems to be about real people, events, places, news, issues and also appears willing to cover things most other organizations will not touch at all. (and good for Vice on that) And here is where my argument is subtle: I want that stuff Vice covers to not only inform, but generate conversations. Good, critical ones. I think we need it, and a filtered representation of comments might not get us there. But, to be fair to Vice, maybe they actually can't get there themselves. In my experience, many organizations just don't seem to get it, or have attracted the masses who just vomit online too. Those that do seem to attract niche demographics who can actually carry on a conversation. It may be that we continue with a model where majors produce stuff we talk about, but we never, ever talk about it there. This would be kind of broken in that they can live in the glass house speaking with relative impunity. You all know a few of the types. Might I suggest David Brooks? He's in that position, completely isolated, able to write stuff that he really should have to experience some feedback on, yet he's where that will never happen. So we talk about Brooks in other places, but not enough places for it to be meaningful in terms of Brooks actually experiencing what others may think of his speech. There is no shield in the First Amendment, however some of us do have an effective shield in this way, and that's not really what the First Amendment is about. Maybe that is as good as it gets. Maybe Vice brings us an alternative that is better somehow. Maybe Vice has balls, in other words. We shall see. Back to editors for a moment. They still do what they do well, and we still need them, but the nature of the need has shifted some with the Internet, and that's good as we see more kinds of speech compete out there for mindshare. I find this important and high value, even when it can be very difficult to read or contemplate at times.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  I agree with you again. Out of interest, who is David Brooks and why do you believe he could use some unfiltered feedback? I've never heard of him.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    Brooks is s political pundit writing for the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/column/david-brooks http://www.nytimes.com/column/david-brooks He often writes everybody is bad type columns that present highly questionable political conclusions and that contradict his own works from the past.. And he's insulated to a degree where nobody will actually call him on any of it. And it's not like he is alone in that either. He is one that I find particularly painful.

ddingus 11y ago

Yes, exactly. I have a love hate with editors these days. Back when communications were largely broadcast, and largely one way, editors really mattered. We needed them to make some sense of the limited resources, and we were in a more firm position of forced trust. Think national TV anchor in the 60's kind of thing, though many examples abound. Today, it's much different. We don't really require standards and news has gone to a for profit, entertainment model. I would reluctantly argue that is a good thing, but not by much, and only because we also got the Internet. The Internet brought checks and balances to the political dialog. Say a cable host just isn't based in reality somehow. Doesn't matter who. Just that they are. Today, that's not hard to find out, unless one is tuned into just a few one way channels. Then it's a bubble. So there is that. Of course, the other bias is that commentary critical to the entity itself. Big companies are crappy at owning errors and failure. They just don't do it. When is the last time you got good, solid reporting on the FCC and whatever decency or other rules it may be contemplating, for example. Net Neutrality as another one? People to people, largely driven by people who really cared and took the time to help others understand well enough to care, and John Oliver who is awesome, got the latter out there. John with, "cable company fuckery" and HBO who really only cares about profit seem to work. But the major news outlets don't seem to work. Vice runs a lot of material that people would want to comment about, and I fear that bias may actually not bring us real commentary, and that would be a shame because Vice seems to be about real people, events, places, news, issues and also appears willing to cover things most other organizations will not touch at all. (and good for Vice on that) And here is where my argument is subtle: I want that stuff Vice covers to not only inform, but generate conversations. Good, critical ones. I think we need it, and a filtered representation of comments might not get us there. But, to be fair to Vice, maybe they actually can't get there themselves. In my experience, many organizations just don't seem to get it, or have attracted the masses who just vomit online too. Those that do seem to attract niche demographics who can actually carry on a conversation. It may be that we continue with a model where majors produce stuff we talk about, but we never, ever talk about it there. This would be kind of broken in that they can live in the glass house speaking with relative impunity. You all know a few of the types. Might I suggest David Brooks? He's in that position, completely isolated, able to write stuff that he really should have to experience some feedback on, yet he's where that will never happen. So we talk about Brooks in other places, but not enough places for it to be meaningful in terms of Brooks actually experiencing what others may think of his speech. There is no shield in the First Amendment, however some of us do have an effective shield in this way, and that's not really what the First Amendment is about. Maybe that is as good as it gets. Maybe Vice brings us an alternative that is better somehow. Maybe Vice has balls, in other words. We shall see. Back to editors for a moment. They still do what they do well, and we still need them, but the nature of the need has shifted some with the Internet, and that's good as we see more kinds of speech compete out there for mindshare. I find this important and high value, even when it can be very difficult to read or contemplate at times.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
I agree with you again. Out of interest, who is David Brooks and why do you believe he could use some unfiltered feedback? I've never heard of him.
- ddingus 11y ago
  Brooks is s political pundit writing for the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/column/david-brooks http://www.nytimes.com/column/david-brooks He often writes everybody is bad type columns that present highly questionable political conclusions and that contradict his own works from the past.. And he's insulated to a degree where nobody will actually call him on any of it. And it's not like he is alone in that either. He is one that I find particularly painful.