5 ms·

Isn't there a role for a non-political disributor of information? Can't Facebook shrug their shoulders and just say they want to be the dumb pipe? Do we reall

Isn't there a role for a non-political disributor of information? Can't Facebook shrug their shoulders and just say they want to be the dumb pipe? Do we really want a huge bureau of censors like China, because that's where we're going.

gcatalfamo 10y ago
They could, but Zuckerberg has invested years in saying that sharing information on Facebook is somewhat meaningful towards making the world more connected. So when Facebook does what Facebook does, he can't just shrug and has to justify it. my 2 cents: he's definitely wrong this time around.
- narrator 10y ago
  When you say "wants to make the world more connected" are you implying that Zuckerberg is an ideologically committed globalist? Maybe he's not and just meant it in a purely technical sense as in one big elaborate but dumb pipe from anybody to anybody.
  - gcatalfamo 10y ago
    Well, I am not in his mind. But everytime he mentioned "making the world more connected" he did look and argumented as he meant it from an ideological point of view. Whether he really has purpose or is it just marketing speak to justify a dumb pipe, one could only speculate about that..
losteric 10y ago
Sure, as long as they are clearly just that... a dumb spam pipeline. Facebook likes pretending to be more, they want to be an unbiased automated news site. And they're failing miserably at that. They need to stop pretending, and either fix or embrace the problem.
- narrator 10y ago
  I think Google News is more of what you're talking about. Everything they reported was from all the highly reputable mainstream. I tried to use them, but I gave up after I could not find a way to remove "top headlines" from my news feed. It's as if my payment for using their service was they could tell me what to think about. As Orwell said: "News is publishing someone doesn't want published. All else is public relations".
stellar678 10y ago
Facebook is already not a dumb pipe. The show you an automatically curated news feed. Since they have taken up the role of curation, they better take responsibility to ensure it's not doing accidental harm.
entee 10y ago
Isn't there a way to not be a censor, but also encourage truth? Some things are factually true and others are factually false. We have huge numbers of fact checkers out there, maybe there's a way to give that work a little more prominence? Facebook is about bringing people together, figuring out a way for the community to have a real discussion from a common set of facts is a really important way of bringing people together.
- narrator 10y ago
  This leads to the who watches the watchers problem. Also, what is the source of truth. What if the truth comes from Wikileaks? China can do this with tens of thousands of people aided by machine learning and other advanced technology, but they have a much more simple and unambiguous task that is largely guided by ideology. If there is a truth that contradicts the ruling ideology, it is also censored. If there is a small falsehood that confirms it, they let it pass.

gcatalfamo 10y ago

They could, but Zuckerberg has invested years in saying that sharing information on Facebook is somewhat meaningful towards making the world more connected. So when Facebook does what Facebook does, he can't just shrug and has to justify it. my 2 cents: he's definitely wrong this time around.

narrator 10y ago
When you say "wants to make the world more connected" are you implying that Zuckerberg is an ideologically committed globalist? Maybe he's not and just meant it in a purely technical sense as in one big elaborate but dumb pipe from anybody to anybody.
- gcatalfamo 10y ago
  Well, I am not in his mind. But everytime he mentioned "making the world more connected" he did look and argumented as he meant it from an ideological point of view. Whether he really has purpose or is it just marketing speak to justify a dumb pipe, one could only speculate about that..

losteric 10y ago

Sure, as long as they are clearly just that... a dumb spam pipeline. Facebook likes pretending to be more, they want to be an unbiased automated news site. And they're failing miserably at that. They need to stop pretending, and either fix or embrace the problem.

narrator 10y ago
I think Google News is more of what you're talking about. Everything they reported was from all the highly reputable mainstream. I tried to use them, but I gave up after I could not find a way to remove "top headlines" from my news feed. It's as if my payment for using their service was they could tell me what to think about. As Orwell said: "News is publishing someone doesn't want published. All else is public relations".

stellar678 10y ago

Facebook is already not a dumb pipe. The show you an automatically curated news feed. Since they have taken up the role of curation, they better take responsibility to ensure it's not doing accidental harm.

entee 10y ago

Isn't there a way to not be a censor, but also encourage truth? Some things are factually true and others are factually false. We have huge numbers of fact checkers out there, maybe there's a way to give that work a little more prominence? Facebook is about bringing people together, figuring out a way for the community to have a real discussion from a common set of facts is a really important way of bringing people together.

narrator 10y ago
This leads to the who watches the watchers problem. Also, what is the source of truth. What if the truth comes from Wikileaks? China can do this with tens of thousands of people aided by machine learning and other advanced technology, but they have a much more simple and unambiguous task that is largely guided by ideology. If there is a truth that contradicts the ruling ideology, it is also censored. If there is a small falsehood that confirms it, they let it pass.