3 ms·
The problem isn't that it's a mechanism for sharing. It's that all previous mechanisms for sharing did not have central control mechanisms that discriminated ba
by ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The problem isn't that it's a mechanism for sharing. It's that all previous mechanisms for sharing did not have central control mechanisms that discriminated based on content.
The postal service cannot prioritize letters that encourage banning abortion. Telephone companies cannot subsidize conversations about organizing unions. Facebook, on the other hand, can exert control over how visible a post is based on whether or not it, say, supports Donald Trump.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It's that all previous mechanisms for sharing did not have central control mechanisms that discriminated based on content. Many previous mechanisms for sharing do have such central control mechanisms, and exercise them far more enthusiastically than does FB. Dead tree print outlets are a mechanism for sharing with such features. Meatspace social clubs are a sharing mechanism with such features. Facebook may be unique in the degree of it's reach for a sharing mechanism with the capacity for centralized editorial control, but it is not historically unique in being a sharing mechanism which features the capacity for centralized editorial control.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoYeah, and another complicating factor is that Facebook's control over your news feed feels invisible. How much pro-Trump content you see in your news feed feels like it's entirely the fault of how pro-Trump your friends are. How much pro-Trump content you see in your newspaper feels like it's the fault of the paper's editorial board, regardless of whether it's a letter to the editor or an official piece.