2 ms·

> Now a pin drops and 50 publications write an "Facebook negligently allowed someone to ... they must be held accountable and regulated and broken apart" articl

by aylmao 8y ago

> Now a pin drops and 50 publications write an "Facebook negligently allowed someone to ... they must be held accountable and regulated and broken apart" article. I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. There's debate of course; does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? Does this make Facebook a media company vs a communications platform? I do think that a lot of the outcry I've been hearing against these open communication mediums have come from old media more so than from the average person.

gnarbarian 8y ago
> does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? there are quite a few independent YouTube news channels I trust far more for showing me the truth than any giant network with vested interests. two examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts
forgottenpass 8y ago
>I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. The funny thing is, those internet companies had a chance to show the media they're not be seen as publications. But the platforms didn't. They wanted an out that let them exercise power over content at the discretion of the people in control of the platform. It's the cost-benefit tradeoff they signed up for. And now other entities are exercising their soft power over the platform to get them to exercise power over the content on the platform.
makomk 8y ago
They're definitely not judging the internet like a media publication; for the most part, they're quite happy to defend almost anything their fellow publications do. They're treating it like a dangerous new threat that's not part of their clique and is eating directly into their profit margins. Compare, for example, how they cover Google and Facebook's compliance with the GDPR and abuse of personal data with how they cover publications doing the same. For instance Fortune and Forbes are doing some heiniously noncompliant stuff in order to ensure they can use people's personal info for profit, but this doesn't seem to be getting any coverage. In order to view this very article, you must go through a forced-consent wall of the very kind the GDPR forbids.

by aylmao 8y ago

gnarbarian 8y ago

> does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? there are quite a few independent YouTube news channels I trust far more for showing me the truth than any giant network with vested interests. two examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts

forgottenpass 8y ago

>I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. The funny thing is, those internet companies had a chance to show the media they're not be seen as publications. But the platforms didn't. They wanted an out that let them exercise power over content at the discretion of the people in control of the platform. It's the cost-benefit tradeoff they signed up for. And now other entities are exercising their soft power over the platform to get them to exercise power over the content on the platform.

makomk 8y ago

They're definitely not judging the internet like a media publication; for the most part, they're quite happy to defend almost anything their fellow publications do. They're treating it like a dangerous new threat that's not part of their clique and is eating directly into their profit margins. Compare, for example, how they cover Google and Facebook's compliance with the GDPR and abuse of personal data with how they cover publications doing the same. For instance Fortune and Forbes are doing some heiniously noncompliant stuff in order to ensure they can use people's personal info for profit, but this doesn't seem to be getting any coverage. In order to view this very article, you must go through a forced-consent wall of the very kind the GDPR forbids.