5 ms·
Ben Thompson is one of those rare people who can actually do "fair and balanced" in a way that doesn't treat atrocious views as a simple and innocent matter of
by Kye 6y ago
Ben Thompson is one of those rare people who can actually do "fair and balanced" in a way that doesn't treat atrocious views as a simple and innocent matter of opinion.
I used to be all aboard the "social media is the problem" train, but...
>> "The point of this is not to debate whether or not the email story was true, or Hunter Biden’s laptop story. Rather, it’s to establish that while social media publishes everything, from mountains of misinformation and conspiracy theories to critical information about an impending pandemic, making something matter requires more than manufacturing zero marginal cost content. The New York Times has that power by default, while Twitter and Facebook only has that power to the extent they do the opposite of what most expect from them (which is to act as a utility for the conveyance of information)."
It really does seem like a long list of Very Serious News Organizations taking it seriously enough to publish hundreds of articles on these things does more harm than it floating out there in the goofball ether. No one should have taken a tabloid seriously. They're still going to, because it's profitable, so the solution is probably not "block it" or "don't write about it." The article has some good ideas.
edit: in particular the comparison between responses from Twitter and Facebook. Facebook slowed rather than blocked. That gave fact checkers time to warm up without dumping go juice into the conspiracy loop. I haven't heard the same apoplectic screaming about Facebook.
- shadowgovt 6y ago> No one should have taken a tabloid seriously In an ideal world, which we do not live in. > They're still going to ... and that's what makes the question of the role of Twitter and Facebook in modern society so dang complicated.
- idiocrat 6y agoHow can only the masses survive without Nanny Facebook?
- shadowgovt 6y agoOne would assume the same way they survived in the era without any Facebook. Now, in a world where Facebook exists, we should probably consider the effect that its particular flow of information has on society. Keep in mind: this is the same company caught running A/B tests on its users without their knowledge on whether running "happy" or "sad" stories had effect on their observable behavior. The public should probably care about what effect Facebook has on it, because Facebook cares about what effect it has on the public.
- ReptileMan 6y ago> No one should have taken a tabloid seriously. Are there any non tabloids left? All of the major news organizations have ideologically and clickbait driven debacles in the last few years.
- dazc 6y agoCouldn't agree more. The non-tabloid paragon of virtue in the UK, AKA The Guardian, is full of made up click bait and poorly researched articles but because they are generally left-leaning it's all fine and dandy.
- hardlianotion 6y agoThe graun is a tabloid these days.
- overtonwhy 6y agoReuters, Associated Press, NPR, New York Times, PBS, BBC, CBS, ABC. There are many more journalistic outlets with excellent reputations but a bias.
- ReptileMan 6y agoNY times after the 1619 debacle (silent edits to save face) shouldn't be on the list.
- jay_kyburz 6y agoThat bias is just the bias of middle class, well educated people.
- Kye 6y agoPretty much. The sneering calls from checkmarked writers for some of these on Twitter for genocide of "bad places" (like where I live) is always unnerving. Some might be joking, but some of them really do believe everyone in the southeast is a tea-sipping, noose-making, dog-kicking monster. And those same people will insist they're very pro-LGBTQ and anti-racism as they call for the genocide of every person they claim to be for in those regions. Which is a lot of people.
- ppod 6y agoGood points, but I feel like the real test would be if this was an unverified anti-Trump story. Did twitter or facebook put the brakes on any of the Steele dossier stuff? The principle of putting the brakes on unverified stuff is good, but, of course, you have to decide what counts as "unverified", and you have to do that objectively, and quickly. What would the NYT say if there was an unverified anti-Trump story a week before the election, but twitter slowed the spread of it until it could be confirmed?