5 ms·
This isn't a new phenomenon, when there were 3-4 major network outlets did the masses get "all the news" or was is pre-filtered by monied interests? It was most
by adrenalinelol 10y ago
This isn't a new phenomenon, when there were 3-4 major network outlets did the masses get "all the news" or was is pre-filtered by monied interests? It was most certainly the latter, the platform has simply changed.
This is something that is changing w/social media. Most users would rather have their own biases confirmed instead of challenged; because social media is just a way of monetizing a user's time, the big players have an incentive to create an echo-chamber for you, guaranteeing you have a higher probability of a positive experience when you use your X platform. A similar phenomena is present in cable news (MSNBC/CNN:neoliberal, Fox News:conservative), anyone watching will acknowledge the news they are watching IS SKEWED but will watch it regardless, despite the fact they'll admit it may be altered (thus less factual).
What will change is how the "channels" are created and maintained. Here is where Facebook has an ungodly level of power, it wouldn't be hard to divide the political spectrum into many more pieces than the traditional conservative and liberal lanes. The amount of possibilities are mind-boggling.
- cageface 10y agoI think it is a new phenomenon. The old news networks at least made an effort to present both sides of most issues. These new filtered feeds just confirm what you already want to believe.
- bogomipz 10y agoI agree. I think when people state that "well there's always been an editorial bias in news media", its a bit disingenuous. If you take the newspaper as an example, even with a bias you are still presented with the entirety of articles for that edition.
- andyjdavis 10y ago>The old news networks at least made an effort to present both sides of most issues I am not sure whether they did that because they wanted to present both sides or if they just wanted to provide confirmation for what everyone wants to believe and they lacked the ability to segment their audience. If both sides of an argument watches the one news program that news program is incentivized to provide fodder for both sides to avoid losing part of their audience.
- qu4z-2 10y agoDoes it really matter what their motivations were if they did it, though? They now have the ability to target ads/content, and they use it. The fact that they would've before if they could doesn't really change that they didn't and now they do.
- andyjdavis 10y agoI suspect it does matter what their motivations were, at least a little. It is about not distorting the truth Vs distorting the truth in two opposite ways that hopefully cancel out. It is still distortion.
- nradov 10y agoThe old news networks made an effort to present two sides of an issue that were both within the mainstream. They seldom presented any of the many other "sides" that were further toward the extremes. And for some issues the media essentially invented the sides themselves just so that they could frame the story in terms of some sort of "controversy".
- verbify 10y agoDo you think the Fox News or the British Daily Mail makes an attempt at presenting both sides of the issue? These are traditional networks (tv, newspapers). People always had filtered content available to them.
- type0 10y ago> Here is where Facebook has an ungodly level of power, it wouldn't be hard to divide the political spectrum into many more pieces ... With great power comes great responsibility. The Zuck is some sort of IRL spider pulling the string on his giant web. I don't think he considers himself ethically responsible for any social implications of what his business is doing and I fear the day when he gets more and more into politics.