3 ms·
There is literally nothing new about facebooks invasive practices in all this news (except that CA took their lunch money). I have a feeling all this coverage
by beagle3 9y ago
There is literally nothing new about facebooks invasive practices in all this news (except that CA took their lunch money).
I have a feeling all this coverage is driven by quite a bit of schadenfraude from the traditional media.
This coverage is well deserved, but I am sad that people are only taking notice now.
- roadbeats 9y agoCoverage is well deserved but only focused on one single case: Trump's campaign. Syrian Civil War began in social media first. The journalists criticising Facebook nowadays used to run campaign for how social media helps protesters organize. What if Arab spring wasn't an organic movement? Isn't it weird that some "experts" suddenly changed their mind about social media after Trump's election? Also, why noone even talks about Google? It's much bigger weapon for manipulating facts if you consider millions of people trusting its results for their questions. People ask Google if Brexit is good, people ask Google if Trump is doing good. And we don't even know how Google picks the best results. What if there are some SEO tricks shared with only a few companies?
- Feniks 9y agoHere in the EU Facebook, Amazon and Google have been distrusted for years. I have a sneaking suspicion that the tech sector WANTS to make this political.
- Groxx 9y agoNews sites largely care about what brings in the money - when a wave starts, they all pile on, and the ad revenue goes up for a while. I don't entirely blame them - it's driven by extremely perverse incentives, and alternatives haven't worked out (yet). But it's undeniably terrible for everyone, and IMO contributes to undermining their usefulness.