4 ms·
Yes, I do want curating from most of my news sources. Nobody(a) has the time do do full background checks on all the stories we read. That curation of relevancy
by jgeada 6y ago
Yes, I do want curating from most of my news sources. Nobody(a) has the time do do full background checks on all the stories we read. That curation of relevancy and truth was one of the most important functions of newspapers and it is good that it is appearing in the online variants.
There will always be the unfiltered version out somewhere, the internet is not centralized.
(a) yes, some people will lie and claim to be able to research and determine the "truth" all they read themselves. Dunning-Kruger has something to say to those people.
- notJim 6y agoI absolutely agree that curation is good, but my question is why do you trust twitter to curate more than an actual newspaper? Did the unnamed bureacracy at Twitter talk to the reporters at the Post to determine whether their methods were sound? Do they have training and education to follow journalistic standards? Similarly, do you want Gmail to decide which emails you should read? If you subscribe to my newsletter, and Google decides they don't like what I'm saying, should they make sure you don't see it? If I publish an anti-government newsletter through the mail, should the post office decide not to send it? What about my ISP? Should they have a say in what I read?
- manigandham 6y agoTwitter is not a news source or aggregation network. It's a social network and specifically not a publisher with editorial control. Exercising control over people's communications (especially when Twitter's CEO calls social media a human right) is a major problem and is not a position they should be in.