5 ms·

I would love to see FB ban any news from their platform, especially politics. Globally.

by bwb 6y ago

bpodgursky 6y ago
This will just ensure that all news is transmitted via memes, screenshots, and unsourced copy-pasted quotes. It won't be an improvement.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  ... or worse - government approved news only.
  - bwb 6y ago
    You aren't stopping conversations. And, FB already has to do that in countries with laws that control those aspects of the free press.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Would there be any difference at this point?
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    The licensing of journalists is coming.
- bwb 6y ago
  Why wouldn't people just visit news sites like normal? You go to cnn.com or nytimes.com or your local newspaper. Thats it, just don't allow it at FB. People post so many fake stories from fakes sites, or outrage stories with headlines for clicks, stop incentivizing that behaviour. Just ban all politics/news and let people talk about other stuff.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    Because people want to use social media, and they're going to keep doing it. And people talk about news. They're still going to talk about it with friends and family. Except, instead of at least linking to an article, now they'll have to share it via selected bits and pieces that FB can't censor (or via pure interpretation).
    - g_p 6y ago
      Perhaps there could be an unintended consequence that people will need to put some more effort into "sharing news" (i.e. writing or copying some words in order to begin a discussion)? By having multiple origin sources for the story (rather than one widely shared post from an outlet) it might reduce the popularity bias of "everyone else liked that, I should too"? Changing user behaviour is hard, but part of me wonders if this could be a really interesting experiment to see if it brings about any meaningful change on social media.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    > You go to cnn.com [...] "outrage stories with headlines for clicks, stop incentivizing that behaviour" CNN is one of the example of news organization that lives on outrage. There's not that many news sites left that avoid clickbaity headlines and fueling outrage. Social media helped to advance that, but it's not now - cable news and just their websites discovered that it works before social media.
  - drstewart 6y ago
    Should this article and discussion be allowed on HN?
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    You might be underestimating the percentage of the population for whom the internet is Facebook. Just like AOL a few decades ago, there are still plenty of uneducated people who genuinely don't know how to navigate the internet on their own. Those people then go on to effectively get their news from Facebook or similar.

I would love to see FB ban any news from their platform, especially politics. Globally.

by bwb 6y ago

I would love to see FB ban any news from their platform, especially politics. Globally.

This will just ensure that all news is transmitted via memes, screenshots, and unsourced copy-pasted quotes. It won't be an improvement.

koheripbal 6y ago
... or worse - government approved news only.
- bwb 6y ago
  You aren't stopping conversations. And, FB already has to do that in countries with laws that control those aspects of the free press.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Would there be any difference at this point?
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The licensing of journalists is coming.
bwb 6y ago
Why wouldn't people just visit news sites like normal? You go to cnn.com or nytimes.com or your local newspaper. Thats it, just don't allow it at FB. People post so many fake stories from fakes sites, or outrage stories with headlines for clicks, stop incentivizing that behaviour. Just ban all politics/news and let people talk about other stuff.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Because people want to use social media, and they're going to keep doing it. And people talk about news. They're still going to talk about it with friends and family. Except, instead of at least linking to an article, now they'll have to share it via selected bits and pieces that FB can't censor (or via pure interpretation).
  - g_p 6y ago
    Perhaps there could be an unintended consequence that people will need to put some more effort into "sharing news" (i.e. writing or copying some words in order to begin a discussion)? By having multiple origin sources for the story (rather than one widely shared post from an outlet) it might reduce the popularity bias of "everyone else liked that, I should too"? Changing user behaviour is hard, but part of me wonders if this could be a really interesting experiment to see if it brings about any meaningful change on social media.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  > You go to cnn.com [...] "outrage stories with headlines for clicks, stop incentivizing that behaviour" CNN is one of the example of news organization that lives on outrage. There's not that many news sites left that avoid clickbaity headlines and fueling outrage. Social media helped to advance that, but it's not now - cable news and just their websites discovered that it works before social media.
- drstewart 6y ago
  Should this article and discussion be allowed on HN?
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  You might be underestimating the percentage of the population for whom the internet is Facebook. Just like AOL a few decades ago, there are still plenty of uneducated people who genuinely don't know how to navigate the internet on their own. Those people then go on to effectively get their news from Facebook or similar.