4 ms·

> it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I know Facebook is a US-based product and everything, but I'm really getting sick and

by r3bl 10y ago

> it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. I know Facebook is a US-based product and everything, but I'm really getting sick and tired of products that are used all over the world getting adjusted just because they are a problem now in the US. First we had "fake news" (which used to be called just propaganda), which we have dealt with long before Internet was even a big thing in our region[0]. Now this. Media survives just fine here. Most people still don't use adblockers and most people are ready to donate for good quality journalism (in fact, there's a Serbian-based investigative reporting center that's currently making an excellent progress in moving away from grants to one-time donations by their readers, and there are other digital-only media sources across Europe which are even breaking records living off of subscriptions by being transparent and talkative to their audience[1]). But nope, instead of doing their own thing, they're going to have to adjust because Facebook wants to promote more "local" things to encourage "civil engagement" because a "research suggests it" (keep in mind there's not a single mention of what that research might actually be, neither in the article itself, nor in the manifesto). You have separate sections in every newspaper what so ever, and unlike in Facebook's very specific, and very tailored to every individual bubbles, at least you skim through the headlines from other sections while you're trying to locate something you will actually read. That alone makes you more informed about what is going on more than Facebook's bubbles ever will. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav... [1] https://medium.com/de-correspondent https://medium.com/de-correspondent

arjie 10y ago
That's what being the little guy is. If you want different results you have to be the big guy. Can't be helped.
- makapuf 10y ago
  Well you know sometimes many little guys can join together and get the/some power cause they can be sufficiently damaging/deathly to the big guy. Democracy, multipolar world...
  - philipov 10y ago
    > Well you know sometimes many little guys can join together and get the/some power cause they can be sufficiently damaging/deathly to the big guy. Have no fear, citizen, that bug will be solved soon.
ykler 10y ago
My understanding is that "fake news" refers to stories fabricated, often by small-time entrepreneurs, to make money off of Internet ads and typically spread through social media. Propaganda, on the other hand, is biased or fabricated stories promulgated to forward a political agenda, especially by a government or other entity in a position of power. However, the term "fake news" has rapidly been politicized, and a lot of people, especially on the right, have used it to refer simply to biased news and false reports (typically with the implication of insufficient checking). So three really different motives here: 1. Fake news makers are exclusively after money. 2. Propagandists are exclusively after a political end. 3. Journalists are mostly after the truth, even if they are very biased and far from immune from the corrupting influence of money and political ends.
- zo1 10y ago
  >"and a lot of people, especially on the right, have used it to refer simply to biased news and false reports (typically with the implication of insufficient checking)." I read a lot of what most would consider "alt-right" news. They've repossessed that term and now use it to refer to really biased reporting on the part of the "mainstream media". The accusation is usually very biased reporting, blatantly favoring left-leaning ideas and politicians, as well as not reporting on issues that contradict the mainstream narrative. Sometimes they go too-far with conspiracy-theory-level stuff, I'll give them that. But for the most part, they're spot on when it comes to reporting on the mainstream media's blatant left-leaning bias and selective reporting. When I read them, it sounds like a "normal" person, one that doesn't jump through hoops to justify their points. The points are just there.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that are threatening the mainstream media. It'll probably work too. Incidentally, insofar as "fake news" is real, it is highly unlikely to have any major effect. ...for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads. https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf

by r3bl 10y ago

arjie 10y ago

That's what being the little guy is. If you want different results you have to be the big guy. Can't be helped.

makapuf 10y ago
Well you know sometimes many little guys can join together and get the/some power cause they can be sufficiently damaging/deathly to the big guy. Democracy, multipolar world...
- philipov 10y ago
  > Well you know sometimes many little guys can join together and get the/some power cause they can be sufficiently damaging/deathly to the big guy. Have no fear, citizen, that bug will be solved soon.

ykler 10y ago

My understanding is that "fake news" refers to stories fabricated, often by small-time entrepreneurs, to make money off of Internet ads and typically spread through social media. Propaganda, on the other hand, is biased or fabricated stories promulgated to forward a political agenda, especially by a government or other entity in a position of power. However, the term "fake news" has rapidly been politicized, and a lot of people, especially on the right, have used it to refer simply to biased news and false reports (typically with the implication of insufficient checking). So three really different motives here: 1. Fake news makers are exclusively after money. 2. Propagandists are exclusively after a political end. 3. Journalists are mostly after the truth, even if they are very biased and far from immune from the corrupting influence of money and political ends.

zo1 10y ago
>"and a lot of people, especially on the right, have used it to refer simply to biased news and false reports (typically with the implication of insufficient checking)." I read a lot of what most would consider "alt-right" news. They've repossessed that term and now use it to refer to really biased reporting on the part of the "mainstream media". The accusation is usually very biased reporting, blatantly favoring left-leaning ideas and politicians, as well as not reporting on issues that contradict the mainstream narrative. Sometimes they go too-far with conspiracy-theory-level stuff, I'll give them that. But for the most part, they're spot on when it comes to reporting on the mainstream media's blatant left-leaning bias and selective reporting. When I read them, it sounds like a "normal" person, one that doesn't jump through hoops to justify their points. The points are just there.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
I don't think this is it. The very concept of fake news is, fundamentally, propaganda. The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives). The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that are threatening the mainstream media. It'll probably work too. Incidentally, insofar as "fake news" is real, it is highly unlikely to have any major effect. ...for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads. https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf