3 ms·

better aggregators. we will never make the internet less noisy. we need better filters. facebook could easily have different toggles for the newsfeed to let

• grzm 10y ago
  Same criticism as below: How is that going to change the content of the news? How does that change the incentives that have resulted in the current situation?
  • basch 10y ago
    there will always be noise. there will always be sensationalism. there will always be deceit and propaganda. what we can do is offer people the tools, and teach them how to navigate through the noise to the signal. one of those tools is to instill a sense of skepticism and a moral responsibility not to propagate noise. when facebook and google ban ads on fake news, new less scrupulous ad networks will spring into place. there is always money in the banana stand, and by banana stand i mean peddling entertaining shit. and by shit i mean shit.
    • grzm 10y ago
      I agree there will always be noise, sensationalism, deceit, and propaganda. The idea that tools can play a role is a good one, though I think it's limited in two ways: - it can be prone to an echo chamber effect if one's not careful - it does nothing to prevent the promulgation of "bad" content (think clickbait), or rather, it doesn't improve the quality of the news As for improving critical thinking skills, wow. That's a tough one. I agree, it's incredibly important. If you can figure out a way of doing that in short order, be sure to let me know, okay? :) This is why I focused on incentives in my question. What would motivate publishers to improve their content? In my opinion, the current situation is due in large part to the reliance on on-line ads, which focus on clicks and eyeballs. Subscriptions encouraged maintaining quality content day to day, not click to click. There's been a lot written about how hard the media industry has been hit in the move from print to digital. I don't see how that's going to get easier over the short term, either, given how deeply imbedded advertising is online. People don't want to pay for content, or at least they're not used to it. And it's difficult for content that's available digitally to be controlled, which it needs to be if the publishers are going to make money producing it. I'm not saying anything new here, and I'm sure it's been stated much better elsewhere. I fear that this is too much armchair-philosophizing on my part now. Thanks for providing the opportunity for me to write some of this up that's been rattling around in my head.
      • basch 10y ago
        >does nothing to prevent the promulgation of "bad" content (think clickbait) agreed, that can be combated by training, teaching, education, etc. you cant make tools and not advertise them or convince people to use them. you either convince them or manipulate people into using them (through advertising or gamification) youre right, chasing ads makes for bad content, but newspapers have always been content mills to support the hard hitting journalism. the alternative could be tax funded journalism (npr, pbs, bbc) or one of the many startups that try to track what you read and then pay out accordingly.