4 ms·

The quest for profit has resulted in companies giving us the ability to curate everything we see even when we think we're getting a random selection of the late

The quest for profit has resulted in companies giving us the ability to curate everything we see even when we think we're getting a random selection of the latest news. Every time we go online we remake the world in our own image, only reflecting ourselves. I'm tired of the constant stream of news stories designed to make me feel smugly correct or spark righteous fury. I'm tired of being told I'm right every moment of every day.

adam12 8y ago
You might not want hear it, but you are right.
theNJR 8y ago
So very well said. We need to rethink what social platforms can be. The power of connection across borders is amazing, but it's turned into funhouse mirrors.
- m-p-3 8y ago
  I just want a most recent feed, not these algorithms that thinks they know better.
IAmEveryone 8y ago
A "random selection of the latest news" is neither well-defined, nor a useful concept: (1) A red car just passed outside my window. (2) Tensions in Kashmir are easing. Both statements are true. They weren't true five days ago. Therefore they are "news". I fail to see why it's the fault of "the quest for profit" when newspapers will tend to give the second news higher billing. Profit-driven (and also non-profit) publishers have a motive to publish stories that "people want to read", yes. But there's a difference between "want to read" and "feel-good news". I'm no fan of global warming, and yet the pesky newspaper I subscribe to insist on reminding me that it exists. Restaurants and supermarkets are just as, or even more, profit-driven. But that has not lead to a monopolisation of nutrition at the low quality end of the spectrum that appeals to our base instincts: McDonald's exists, just as tabloids do. But spinach or the New York Times steadfastly refuse to disappear.
- msla 8y ago
  And even if you select for news which might affect a large portion of the world, you run into issues of which stories to present first, which ones to go in-depth on, and other issues of news judgment that any paper or TV station made. Back in the Old Days, newsrooms were full of people who debated what the news was, in terms of which stories to run, which ones were headlines, and which ones were below the fold on the second page. Those people were, let us be clear, straight White men who either were cis and hetero or were able to fake it well enough to have a professional career. Most of them were Christian, and if you go back far enough in some regions that effectively excludes Catholics. They were news judgment, in terms of the news sources which mattered. They were the gatekeepers. So we have different gatekeepers now. This is only deeply disturbing if you thought the gatekeepers never existed, or went away entirely.
criddell 8y ago
Maybe eventually news outlets will have enough information about you that they will figure out how to serve you better. I mostly use Apple News for reading news and after a few months of marking stories as good or bad, it's getting better and better at showing me stuff I actually want to see.
- devoply 8y ago
  Yes the anti-vax stories are also on top of my lists. I know the elite rather have me seeing stories about how Iran is evil and needs to be liberated, but I prefer these stories. /s Maybe if everyone just shut up about everything we could all get some peace. Those who know don't say and those who say don't know.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    If you stop reading then you’ll live in a world where everyone shut up.
- vanattab 8y ago
  >Maybe eventually news outlets will have enough information about you that they will figure out how to serve you better. They don't gather that information to "serve you better" they gather it "serve you up better"! They are going to use the information to grab the attention of your eyeballs for their own purposes not to better serve you. Remember if your not paying for the product you are the product.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    It totally depends on what you mark good and bad. If you mark shallow, screaming articles as bad and they continue serving them you’ll soon switch to another platform. It’s in your responsibility to use the tools wisely.
epicureanideal 8y ago
The thing I worry about is even if the news networks try to show us "opposing viewpoints" they'll curate those, alter them somehow, etc. Maybe it'll be used as an excuse to flood us with one particular view they happen to share...
kayfox 8y ago
I think one of the things we loose when we transitioned from newspapers to reading news online is the drive to condense information and curate what is reported for such a broad audience. I distinctly remember how my grandfathers, both of them, would not consider themselves done with the daily newspaper unless they read the first section, or typically for one of them, the whole paper. These days we selectivaly choose which articles to read, which to not read. We read what we enjoy or are passionate about, we don't read what depresses us, or conflicts with our worldview. From what I can see, this is leading to greatly warped worldviews all around. We feel like we are fully informed while only having seen one side of the issue, we then dismiss reporting from the other side or more and more, centrist or neutral reporting as driven by ideology as if what we are reading and hearing is not driven by ideology.

adam12 8y ago

You might not want hear it, but you are right.

theNJR 8y ago

So very well said. We need to rethink what social platforms can be. The power of connection across borders is amazing, but it's turned into funhouse mirrors.

m-p-3 8y ago
I just want a most recent feed, not these algorithms that thinks they know better.

IAmEveryone 8y ago

A "random selection of the latest news" is neither well-defined, nor a useful concept: (1) A red car just passed outside my window. (2) Tensions in Kashmir are easing. Both statements are true. They weren't true five days ago. Therefore they are "news". I fail to see why it's the fault of "the quest for profit" when newspapers will tend to give the second news higher billing. Profit-driven (and also non-profit) publishers have a motive to publish stories that "people want to read", yes. But there's a difference between "want to read" and "feel-good news". I'm no fan of global warming, and yet the pesky newspaper I subscribe to insist on reminding me that it exists. Restaurants and supermarkets are just as, or even more, profit-driven. But that has not lead to a monopolisation of nutrition at the low quality end of the spectrum that appeals to our base instincts: McDonald's exists, just as tabloids do. But spinach or the New York Times steadfastly refuse to disappear.

msla 8y ago
And even if you select for news which might affect a large portion of the world, you run into issues of which stories to present first, which ones to go in-depth on, and other issues of news judgment that any paper or TV station made. Back in the Old Days, newsrooms were full of people who debated what the news was, in terms of which stories to run, which ones were headlines, and which ones were below the fold on the second page. Those people were, let us be clear, straight White men who either were cis and hetero or were able to fake it well enough to have a professional career. Most of them were Christian, and if you go back far enough in some regions that effectively excludes Catholics. They were news judgment, in terms of the news sources which mattered. They were the gatekeepers. So we have different gatekeepers now. This is only deeply disturbing if you thought the gatekeepers never existed, or went away entirely.

criddell 8y ago

Maybe eventually news outlets will have enough information about you that they will figure out how to serve you better. I mostly use Apple News for reading news and after a few months of marking stories as good or bad, it's getting better and better at showing me stuff I actually want to see.

devoply 8y ago
Yes the anti-vax stories are also on top of my lists. I know the elite rather have me seeing stories about how Iran is evil and needs to be liberated, but I prefer these stories. /s Maybe if everyone just shut up about everything we could all get some peace. Those who know don't say and those who say don't know.
- lixtra 8y ago
  If you stop reading then you’ll live in a world where everyone shut up.
vanattab 8y ago
>Maybe eventually news outlets will have enough information about you that they will figure out how to serve you better. They don't gather that information to "serve you better" they gather it "serve you up better"! They are going to use the information to grab the attention of your eyeballs for their own purposes not to better serve you. Remember if your not paying for the product you are the product.
- lixtra 8y ago
  It totally depends on what you mark good and bad. If you mark shallow, screaming articles as bad and they continue serving them you’ll soon switch to another platform. It’s in your responsibility to use the tools wisely.

epicureanideal 8y ago

The thing I worry about is even if the news networks try to show us "opposing viewpoints" they'll curate those, alter them somehow, etc. Maybe it'll be used as an excuse to flood us with one particular view they happen to share...

kayfox 8y ago

I think one of the things we loose when we transitioned from newspapers to reading news online is the drive to condense information and curate what is reported for such a broad audience. I distinctly remember how my grandfathers, both of them, would not consider themselves done with the daily newspaper unless they read the first section, or typically for one of them, the whole paper. These days we selectivaly choose which articles to read, which to not read. We read what we enjoy or are passionate about, we don't read what depresses us, or conflicts with our worldview. From what I can see, this is leading to greatly warped worldviews all around. We feel like we are fully informed while only having seen one side of the issue, we then dismiss reporting from the other side or more and more, centrist or neutral reporting as driven by ideology as if what we are reading and hearing is not driven by ideology.