4 ms·

Oh no, not that, anything but that. In all seriousness I hope this drives the less informed in Australia to seek out actual news sources and break out of the e

by tw04 6y ago

Oh no, not that, anything but that. In all seriousness I hope this drives the less informed in Australia to seek out actual news sources and break out of the echo chamber that is Facebook. And I hope it forces Facebook to actually support journalism instead of leeching off of it. You can't have a robust democracy without a robust fourth estate.

darth_avocado 6y ago
I can guarantee that the exact opposite of that is gonna happen. There's a reason why we are in the current state of misinformation. Quality journalism stays behind paywalls, while misinformation is free. In the age of constant information, anything that has more barriers to access, keeps losing its position in the ecosystem.
creddit 6y ago
> And I hope it forces Facebook to actually support journalism instead of leeching off of it. Not unreasonable arguments could be made that it's journalism that leeches off of FB. FB drives huge traffic and provides a massive platform.
tomComb 6y ago
If FB thought that would happen they wouldn't have done. And have you seen the types of 'information' people share on Facebook when they are not sharing links to news? I think users will stay in Facebook but share lower quality stuff.
exporectomy 6y ago
Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? How would you know? Are you one of them? How would you know? If you are, then aren't any opinions you share on the internet just making things worse? I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. For example, you expressed concern for democracy in your post here, which seems like a pretty big danger! Is that really at risk for Australia or are you misinformed about the significance of this particular bogeyman? I also see people complaining about misinformation while never identifying themselves as victims of it. Why aren't the victims complaining? Because part of being a victim of misinformation includes not knowing that you are. So maybe it's yourself, in which case, better to address that problem before trying to "correct" others. Also, this idea of there being a huge underclass of misinformed people damaging democracy is divisive. It classifies people into good (always ourselves) and bad (always someone else), giving moral justification to the self-declared "good" people to correct the "bad" people.
- konjin 6y ago
  >Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? Yes. >How would you know? By the simple fact the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers and letting the states deal with it (poorly). So far the virus has escaped a dozen times through badly run quarantines and none of the lessons are shared between states, because each state has to build the experience for itself. >I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. You ask these questions because its a weaselly way to get around the HN rules of not insulting people while implying exactly the same thing. In short are you looking for a job with News Corp? Because this is exactly the type of content they want google and FB to support.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    > the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers I assume your claim is true even though a quick Google doesn't show how. So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? It's entirely up to the whim of voters? Then it's fair enough that they don't comply since it's optional. Democracy is the general population choosing the government, not a self-declared group of "right" people. So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me".
    - konjin 6y ago
      > So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? Australia has the most volatile politics of any English speaking country. The two ways for a government to be forced to follow the constitution is for the Queen to fire them, or for a military coup. Both were considered during the last time the government was in deadlock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... >So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me". My claim is that an Australian government is acting outside the constitution and responsible for the deaths of thousands. Not sure what you're trying to do with your strawman argument.
ankit219 6y ago
I hope so too. Though I have a different theory on how the public would react. Australian users of FB/Instagram can't share links to any news website. But they can share screenshots and memes about the news. Even videos. The other thing - many summary accounts just popup who would give their version of the news in text or video. Why? because the news is paywalled and not everyone pays. This is a rabbit hole, and Australian govt wont let it go easily. They will next complain about screenshots being shared - tough to monitor but they are literally taking away the traffic from news sites. People move away from a website if it can't fulfill their needs. But, if they have all the needs (wants?) fulfilled except the part about news, they won't go to another site, they will just find a hack to fulfill the news bit. How far can the content moderation go? Given the motives of publishers are not noble here, asking for money for something they should be paying, not having traffic would hurt them badly. This is what Facebook is betting on, but given the size of the issue, it would be embarrassment for the govt to walk back the proposals after FB has withdrawn. Give it a year, they will come to an agreement where both parties win.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Both of those hopes seem naive to me. More likely is that users will stay on FB and consume each other’s insane conspiracy theories without even a hint of real reporting added in.
DLay 6y ago
It will certainly encourage them to get a jumpstart on their substack competitor.
abraae 6y ago
Australia doesn't really have a robust fourth estate. It has a Murdoch-ruled empire which is pretty much the propaganda arm of the rightwing Liberal government, though it's hard to say who wags who's tail. FB is an insane echo chamber for sure but at least you can pick your chamber. Any exposure to the news in Australia is tainted by the Murdoch's foul agenda.
DecoPerson 6y ago
Unfortunately, there’s nothing to stop “Facebook journalists.” All of those keyboard warriors in the comments will start summarizing news articles and sharing them on pages or in groups. It will make the echo chamber effect worse, not better.

by tw04 6y ago

darth_avocado 6y ago

I can guarantee that the exact opposite of that is gonna happen. There's a reason why we are in the current state of misinformation. Quality journalism stays behind paywalls, while misinformation is free. In the age of constant information, anything that has more barriers to access, keeps losing its position in the ecosystem.

creddit 6y ago

> And I hope it forces Facebook to actually support journalism instead of leeching off of it. Not unreasonable arguments could be made that it's journalism that leeches off of FB. FB drives huge traffic and provides a massive platform.

tomComb 6y ago

If FB thought that would happen they wouldn't have done. And have you seen the types of 'information' people share on Facebook when they are not sharing links to news? I think users will stay in Facebook but share lower quality stuff.

exporectomy 6y ago

Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? How would you know? Are you one of them? How would you know? If you are, then aren't any opinions you share on the internet just making things worse? I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. For example, you expressed concern for democracy in your post here, which seems like a pretty big danger! Is that really at risk for Australia or are you misinformed about the significance of this particular bogeyman? I also see people complaining about misinformation while never identifying themselves as victims of it. Why aren't the victims complaining? Because part of being a victim of misinformation includes not knowing that you are. So maybe it's yourself, in which case, better to address that problem before trying to "correct" others. Also, this idea of there being a huge underclass of misinformed people damaging democracy is divisive. It classifies people into good (always ourselves) and bad (always someone else), giving moral justification to the self-declared "good" people to correct the "bad" people.

konjin 6y ago
>Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? Yes. >How would you know? By the simple fact the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers and letting the states deal with it (poorly). So far the virus has escaped a dozen times through badly run quarantines and none of the lessons are shared between states, because each state has to build the experience for itself. >I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. You ask these questions because its a weaselly way to get around the HN rules of not insulting people while implying exactly the same thing. In short are you looking for a job with News Corp? Because this is exactly the type of content they want google and FB to support.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  > the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers I assume your claim is true even though a quick Google doesn't show how. So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? It's entirely up to the whim of voters? Then it's fair enough that they don't comply since it's optional. Democracy is the general population choosing the government, not a self-declared group of "right" people. So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me".
  - konjin 6y ago
    > So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? Australia has the most volatile politics of any English speaking country. The two ways for a government to be forced to follow the constitution is for the Queen to fire them, or for a military coup. Both were considered during the last time the government was in deadlock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... >So far, your claim about less informed people is essentially just "other people voted for a government I don't like so they must have been less informed than me". My claim is that an Australian government is acting outside the constitution and responsible for the deaths of thousands. Not sure what you're trying to do with your strawman argument.

ankit219 6y ago

I hope so too. Though I have a different theory on how the public would react. Australian users of FB/Instagram can't share links to any news website. But they can share screenshots and memes about the news. Even videos. The other thing - many summary accounts just popup who would give their version of the news in text or video. Why? because the news is paywalled and not everyone pays. This is a rabbit hole, and Australian govt wont let it go easily. They will next complain about screenshots being shared - tough to monitor but they are literally taking away the traffic from news sites. People move away from a website if it can't fulfill their needs. But, if they have all the needs (wants?) fulfilled except the part about news, they won't go to another site, they will just find a hack to fulfill the news bit. How far can the content moderation go? Given the motives of publishers are not noble here, asking for money for something they should be paying, not having traffic would hurt them badly. This is what Facebook is betting on, but given the size of the issue, it would be embarrassment for the govt to walk back the proposals after FB has withdrawn. Give it a year, they will come to an agreement where both parties win.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Both of those hopes seem naive to me. More likely is that users will stay on FB and consume each other’s insane conspiracy theories without even a hint of real reporting added in.

DLay 6y ago

It will certainly encourage them to get a jumpstart on their substack competitor.

abraae 6y ago

Australia doesn't really have a robust fourth estate. It has a Murdoch-ruled empire which is pretty much the propaganda arm of the rightwing Liberal government, though it's hard to say who wags who's tail. FB is an insane echo chamber for sure but at least you can pick your chamber. Any exposure to the news in Australia is tainted by the Murdoch's foul agenda.

DecoPerson 6y ago

Unfortunately, there’s nothing to stop “Facebook journalists.” All of those keyboard warriors in the comments will start summarizing news articles and sharing them on pages or in groups. It will make the echo chamber effect worse, not better.