3 ms·

The article is placing the blame on Google and Facebook when it should be placed on us, the "consumers" of media. We need to take a look in the mirror and under

The article is placing the blame on Google and Facebook when it should be placed on us, the "consumers" of media. We need to take a look in the mirror and understand who we are and what we want. Ask yourself. Really ask yourself: - What kind of information am I looking for and why? Am I just a digital rubbernecker? Do I want to break this story at the watercolor? Or do I need to know if a loved one was hurt? - Do I need to know shortly after an event occurs or am I able to tolerate a little bit of delay in my gratification? Shortly after an event, there are many stories and they haven't yet been synthesized into one narrative. There are people who want to capitalize on tragedy and their voices are part of the mix. Over time, the noise is stripped away and what we get is the official narrative and that is one we can "count" on. If you are willing and able to wait until the official narrative comes out then a) congratulations, you have will power unheard of in this day and age, and b) you get the benefit of skipping all of the intermediary chaos states. If you understand why you need to know and when you need to know it, then you can control the quality of the news you expose yourself to.

throwaway2048 9y ago
These kinds of statements seem deep and meaingful, but ultimately they are vaccuous. The only reason any market entity exists is because people buy things from them, its the buyers fault. The only reason corrupt governments exist is because the people elect them, or at the very least don't overthrow them, its the governed's fault. Its a stupid oversimplication that places all the blame on the giant, vauge, and futile "everyone", while ignoring incentive structures and pretty much every ounce of nuance and sublty. Not to mention that it totally ignores how entities like the aformentioned, and amagoosoftbook shape our preferences, both actively, and unitentionally. Its a hopeless putdown of basicly any ability for anything to change, ever.
- partisan 9y ago
  I am speaking specifically about this particular article and the topic it is covering. Whatever assumptions you used to arrive at your conclusions were introduced by the story you wanted to tell. I'd rather you didn't extrapolate from what I wrote. Ask me nicely and I will tell you why fixing Facebook and Google are not the answer.
  - electricEmu 9y ago
    The original replier doesn't sound as if they're extropolating to me. You're also telling a story, and shouldn't be the only one in the conversation to do so. > Over time, the noise is stripped away and what we get is the official narrative and that is one we can "count" on. I'd ask why fixing Facebook or Google isn't the answer, but that would play into _your_ extropolating narrative. Instead, why shouldn't Google and Facebook be responsible, and held accountable, for posting absolutely fake news automatically? It's not a "firehose" or "unsubstantiated" information, it's projected as "news".
    - partisan 9y ago
      You've simply restated the problem. Why not contribute to the discussion? How would you fix Google and Facebook? How would you hold them responsible and accountable? And why?
      - electricEmu 9y ago
        > You've simply restated the problem. Why not contribute to the discussion? I'm sorry, but I've already asked a direct question and do not consider it a restatement of the problem.
        partisan 9y ago
        It really would be a better exercise for you to think through how you would actually hold them accountable. What service do they provide, concretely? What are their SLAs? What does your contract with them say? Every service is a contract between a service provider and a paying customer. There is a specific set of parameters the service provider must adhere to. What would a contract with Facebook or Google and their non-paying customers look like? Should people pay for the service or should we expect Google to eat the cost? What is "news"? How do you know it when you see it? How do they detect fake news? What about all of the opinion pieces that appear on the Google News front page? Should those be included or excluded? Are we talking about white listing websites? Who controls that list and how do you get on it? Or, should Google hire people to filter the news for you? I am asking you to think about what you are proposing so that you can see that there are problems there, some of them big in scope. Considering think about it is not a solution.
mrweasel 9y ago
>Do I need to know shortly after an event occurs The traditional media is pushing "minute-by-minute" news pretty hard as well, but you're right in that people would rather have information right now, instead of correct information in a little while. The result is misinformation, deliberate or not, and some times that flawed information will taint the debate afterwards. I can understand people wanting to know if loved ones are safe, and Facebook is actually helping in that regards, but there needs to be a delay on information, long enough to get verification. Believing that Google, YouTube and Facebook are to blame for low quality information is missing the point. Twitter and Facebook for instance have often been the source of truthful and detailed information faster than the tradition media. Likewise tradition media as also contributed to the spreading of false information. Often this isn't deliberate, but because journalists are getting increasingly worse at their job. What I believe is happening is that journalists are upset that they can just sit at their desks, cruising the internet and cover stories that way, because they aren't capable of disseminating the incoming the information they read on the internet.

throwaway2048 9y ago

These kinds of statements seem deep and meaingful, but ultimately they are vaccuous. The only reason any market entity exists is because people buy things from them, its the buyers fault. The only reason corrupt governments exist is because the people elect them, or at the very least don't overthrow them, its the governed's fault. Its a stupid oversimplication that places all the blame on the giant, vauge, and futile "everyone", while ignoring incentive structures and pretty much every ounce of nuance and sublty. Not to mention that it totally ignores how entities like the aformentioned, and amagoosoftbook shape our preferences, both actively, and unitentionally. Its a hopeless putdown of basicly any ability for anything to change, ever.

partisan 9y ago
I am speaking specifically about this particular article and the topic it is covering. Whatever assumptions you used to arrive at your conclusions were introduced by the story you wanted to tell. I'd rather you didn't extrapolate from what I wrote. Ask me nicely and I will tell you why fixing Facebook and Google are not the answer.
- electricEmu 9y ago
  The original replier doesn't sound as if they're extropolating to me. You're also telling a story, and shouldn't be the only one in the conversation to do so. > Over time, the noise is stripped away and what we get is the official narrative and that is one we can "count" on. I'd ask why fixing Facebook or Google isn't the answer, but that would play into _your_ extropolating narrative. Instead, why shouldn't Google and Facebook be responsible, and held accountable, for posting absolutely fake news automatically? It's not a "firehose" or "unsubstantiated" information, it's projected as "news".
  - partisan 9y ago
    You've simply restated the problem. Why not contribute to the discussion? How would you fix Google and Facebook? How would you hold them responsible and accountable? And why?
    - electricEmu 9y ago
      > You've simply restated the problem. Why not contribute to the discussion? I'm sorry, but I've already asked a direct question and do not consider it a restatement of the problem.
      - partisan 9y ago
        It really would be a better exercise for you to think through how you would actually hold them accountable. What service do they provide, concretely? What are their SLAs? What does your contract with them say? Every service is a contract between a service provider and a paying customer. There is a specific set of parameters the service provider must adhere to. What would a contract with Facebook or Google and their non-paying customers look like? Should people pay for the service or should we expect Google to eat the cost? What is "news"? How do you know it when you see it? How do they detect fake news? What about all of the opinion pieces that appear on the Google News front page? Should those be included or excluded? Are we talking about white listing websites? Who controls that list and how do you get on it? Or, should Google hire people to filter the news for you? I am asking you to think about what you are proposing so that you can see that there are problems there, some of them big in scope. Considering think about it is not a solution.

mrweasel 9y ago

>Do I need to know shortly after an event occurs The traditional media is pushing "minute-by-minute" news pretty hard as well, but you're right in that people would rather have information right now, instead of correct information in a little while. The result is misinformation, deliberate or not, and some times that flawed information will taint the debate afterwards. I can understand people wanting to know if loved ones are safe, and Facebook is actually helping in that regards, but there needs to be a delay on information, long enough to get verification. Believing that Google, YouTube and Facebook are to blame for low quality information is missing the point. Twitter and Facebook for instance have often been the source of truthful and detailed information faster than the tradition media. Likewise tradition media as also contributed to the spreading of false information. Often this isn't deliberate, but because journalists are getting increasingly worse at their job. What I believe is happening is that journalists are upset that they can just sit at their desks, cruising the internet and cover stories that way, because they aren't capable of disseminating the incoming the information they read on the internet.