4 ms·

There's no legal precedent here. Tech can go like Hollywood and push whatever political agenda they want. That being said, this is the type of thing that makes

There's no legal precedent here. Tech can go like Hollywood and push whatever political agenda they want. That being said, this is the type of thing that makes 1984 look a lot less like fiction. How many 13-18 year olds, who don't watch TV, are instead experiencing intense indoctrination controlled by Facebook? No matter your political leanings you must find this troublesome. I remember when I was 18 I went to college, started working, started paying taxes, and stopped watching TV. Suddenly I had space to question my political views, which I realized on the whole had been implanted by the media. Facebook could be even worse - how many people actually get away from their influence?

imaginenore 10y ago
Or you can just admit that facebook is liberal leaning and treat it like any other liberal site.
maxerickson 10y ago
How often will that indoctrination be better than they'd get otherwise? Not that I approve of Facebook manipulating users, I think we are at a point where we need to diffuse power wherever we can. We certainly shouldn't blithely hand it to businesses. That said, it's hard to not end up at least giving the above aspect of it some consideration.
- weberc2 10y ago
  > How often will that indoctrination be better than they'd get otherwise? Surveying university campus climates, just about anything looks like an improvement.
mmanfrin 10y ago
intense indoctrination Where you seeing that? And if filtering a few news stories on a social networking site is 'intense', then what are those private companies writing specifically tilted views of history for school textbooks in Texas doing?
- oxide 10y ago
  well, that's only mild indoctrination. intense indoctrination requires that it be done through the internet, via an optional social media service.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    >via an optional social media service. Owning a car is 'optional' in the same sense. In that in many places in the U.S it isn't optional, unless you're self-employed. Otherwise, you're going to be unemployed. There is a large trade off for making the choice. Any people who willingly opt out of social media (especially Facebook) risk alienating themselves from friends and family entirely. Seen as "weird" for opting out of having a FB/refusing to use it entirely. Even weirder if you cite "privacy concerns" as your reasoning for not having it. There is far too much social pressure for most people to put up with not having one. Unless they already lead healthy social lives or are socially reclusive enough that social pressure is lost entirely on them. Source: Living life without Facebook
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Yes, at your age it is isolating to avoid Facebook; yet 13-18 year olds are already predominantly using other social networks already. Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram are dominating this segment [1]. I don't fear for the children in this case. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/16/survey-finds-teens-prefer-instagram-snapchat-among-social-networks/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/16/survey-finds-teens-pr...
      - Nadya 10y ago
        When I was in that age bracket it was not having a Myspace that was socially isolating. A few years ago (I'd estimate 2009 to early 2013) it was Facebook within the later half. Having just clicked the WSJ link. The graph shows "Fall 2012" is the fall off of Facebook which lines up with my memory. Either way, my broader point was "social media being 'optional' doesn't really mean it is 'optional'". You can opt out - but there is a tradeoff that not everyone is willing to make. As for indoctrination - I'm far more concerned with 18-25 year olds who have the ability to vote being indoctrinated into a certain mindset than 13-17 year olds. (E: You know what, on a second visit to my post both are equally bad as the 13-17 will be able to vote "soon" too.) ps: Twitter has a similar issue. They suppress and attempt to censor trending hashtags (preventing them from autocompleting) that go against their political standings.
jessriedel 10y ago
Do you mean legal basis/restriction rather than legal precedent?

imaginenore 10y ago

Or you can just admit that facebook is liberal leaning and treat it like any other liberal site.

maxerickson 10y ago

How often will that indoctrination be better than they'd get otherwise? Not that I approve of Facebook manipulating users, I think we are at a point where we need to diffuse power wherever we can. We certainly shouldn't blithely hand it to businesses. That said, it's hard to not end up at least giving the above aspect of it some consideration.

weberc2 10y ago
> How often will that indoctrination be better than they'd get otherwise? Surveying university campus climates, just about anything looks like an improvement.

mmanfrin 10y ago

intense indoctrination Where you seeing that? And if filtering a few news stories on a social networking site is 'intense', then what are those private companies writing specifically tilted views of history for school textbooks in Texas doing?

oxide 10y ago
well, that's only mild indoctrination. intense indoctrination requires that it be done through the internet, via an optional social media service.
- Nadya 10y ago
  >via an optional social media service. Owning a car is 'optional' in the same sense. In that in many places in the U.S it isn't optional, unless you're self-employed. Otherwise, you're going to be unemployed. There is a large trade off for making the choice. Any people who willingly opt out of social media (especially Facebook) risk alienating themselves from friends and family entirely. Seen as "weird" for opting out of having a FB/refusing to use it entirely. Even weirder if you cite "privacy concerns" as your reasoning for not having it. There is far too much social pressure for most people to put up with not having one. Unless they already lead healthy social lives or are socially reclusive enough that social pressure is lost entirely on them. Source: Living life without Facebook
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Yes, at your age it is isolating to avoid Facebook; yet 13-18 year olds are already predominantly using other social networks already. Snapchat, Twitter, and Instagram are dominating this segment [1]. I don't fear for the children in this case. [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/16/survey-finds-teens-prefer-instagram-snapchat-among-social-networks/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/10/16/survey-finds-teens-pr...
    - Nadya 10y ago
      When I was in that age bracket it was not having a Myspace that was socially isolating. A few years ago (I'd estimate 2009 to early 2013) it was Facebook within the later half. Having just clicked the WSJ link. The graph shows "Fall 2012" is the fall off of Facebook which lines up with my memory. Either way, my broader point was "social media being 'optional' doesn't really mean it is 'optional'". You can opt out - but there is a tradeoff that not everyone is willing to make. As for indoctrination - I'm far more concerned with 18-25 year olds who have the ability to vote being indoctrinated into a certain mindset than 13-17 year olds. (E: You know what, on a second visit to my post both are equally bad as the 13-17 will be able to vote "soon" too.) ps: Twitter has a similar issue. They suppress and attempt to censor trending hashtags (preventing them from autocompleting) that go against their political standings.

jessriedel 10y ago

Do you mean legal basis/restriction rather than legal precedent?