3 ms·

What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. CNN and Fox News are just using di

What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. CNN and Fox News are just using different methods based on the data they have available which comes from focus groups, Nielsen, and a whole cottage industry that most people are unaware of.

afavour 5y ago
> What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. Right, but we know what they are showing people. We have no idea what Facebook is showing people. There's no equivalence there. Yes, both are bad, but in the context of these leaks equating Facebook to CNN is delusional deflection.
- jasondigitized 5y ago
  It’s not deflection. You are pointing out magnification. It’s the same concept. Facebook just has far greater granularity in their ability to target and deliver personalized content. CNN and Fox News is still segmenting content and targeting users. That’s why they can both coexist. I am not arguing that Facebook isn’t far more sophisticated. Newspapers < CNN < CNN.com < Facebook.
giantrobot 5y ago
You're doubling down on your whataboutism and deflection. The key difference between Facebook's "news" feed any mainstream television and print news is visibility. If I record every minute of cable news and subscribe to a bunch of newspapers I can tell you the exact contents of each. If any of them wants to espouse a narrative it's pretty easy to see just by looking at what they've aired/printed. That's not possible to do with Facebook, unless you are Facebook. Every users' "news" feed is slightly different based on their behavior/relationships tracked on Facebook and through their massive advertising network (off Facebook). I put "news" in quotes because Facebook tunes the contents of their feeds for monitization rather than any semblance of truth or accuracy. Facebook is awash in literal fake news, as in completely made up "news" articles, because they peak in some engagement metric. An actual news program on cable or non-opinion news article in a paper can't get away with outright lies. They also would be liable for outright defamation. For all the ills and failings of cable news and newspapers they are nowhere near as toxic or fundamentally broken as Facebook's "news" feeds. They're not even in the same ballpark which makes your whataboutism really puzzling. Do you honestly not see the difference?
- jasondigitized 5y ago
  You are pointing out scale and impact which I agree with. I am pointing out economics. Both have incentives which are driving outcomes that are undermining civility and cooperation.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    The scale and impact are an important distinction which you're ignoring in order to conflate two unlike things. A cable news network has very little ability to perform dog wagging. While they can use incendiary lead-ins for stories or hire divisive commentators (not news people) to get viewers to stick around while they run ads, they can't really drive anyone to buy a Chevy truck or shop at Target. Cable news also has to toe a line of legality with respect to defamation, see for instance Dominion's cases against Newsmax and OANN. For as bad as you think cable news networks or newspapers are, they do have some accountability. Facebook on the other hand has little to no accountability for "news" they push. These leaks show they literally know that peddling falsehoods and divisive content is harmful but choose to do it because it makes more money. They also have the ability to wag the dog because their algorithms stick people in echo chambers that just reenforce negativity. They can and do drive people to radicalize because incendiary content drives "engagement" which makes Facebook more money. Suggesting Facebook and cable news (or newspapers) are somehow comparable in their toxicity is a bit ridiculous. You're also doing so in a thread about a Facebook whistleblower. When a CNN or Fox News whistleblower leaks a bunch of documents saying they knowingly aired false or defamatory content to make more money, you can tell about them all you want.

afavour 5y ago

> What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. Right, but we know what they are showing people. We have no idea what Facebook is showing people. There's no equivalence there. Yes, both are bad, but in the context of these leaks equating Facebook to CNN is delusional deflection.

jasondigitized 5y ago
It’s not deflection. You are pointing out magnification. It’s the same concept. Facebook just has far greater granularity in their ability to target and deliver personalized content. CNN and Fox News is still segmenting content and targeting users. That’s why they can both coexist. I am not arguing that Facebook isn’t far more sophisticated. Newspapers < CNN < CNN.com < Facebook.

giantrobot 5y ago

You're doubling down on your whataboutism and deflection. The key difference between Facebook's "news" feed any mainstream television and print news is visibility. If I record every minute of cable news and subscribe to a bunch of newspapers I can tell you the exact contents of each. If any of them wants to espouse a narrative it's pretty easy to see just by looking at what they've aired/printed. That's not possible to do with Facebook, unless you are Facebook. Every users' "news" feed is slightly different based on their behavior/relationships tracked on Facebook and through their massive advertising network (off Facebook). I put "news" in quotes because Facebook tunes the contents of their feeds for monitization rather than any semblance of truth or accuracy. Facebook is awash in literal fake news, as in completely made up "news" articles, because they peak in some engagement metric. An actual news program on cable or non-opinion news article in a paper can't get away with outright lies. They also would be liable for outright defamation. For all the ills and failings of cable news and newspapers they are nowhere near as toxic or fundamentally broken as Facebook's "news" feeds. They're not even in the same ballpark which makes your whataboutism really puzzling. Do you honestly not see the difference?

jasondigitized 5y ago
You are pointing out scale and impact which I agree with. I am pointing out economics. Both have incentives which are driving outcomes that are undermining civility and cooperation.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  The scale and impact are an important distinction which you're ignoring in order to conflate two unlike things. A cable news network has very little ability to perform dog wagging. While they can use incendiary lead-ins for stories or hire divisive commentators (not news people) to get viewers to stick around while they run ads, they can't really drive anyone to buy a Chevy truck or shop at Target. Cable news also has to toe a line of legality with respect to defamation, see for instance Dominion's cases against Newsmax and OANN. For as bad as you think cable news networks or newspapers are, they do have some accountability. Facebook on the other hand has little to no accountability for "news" they push. These leaks show they literally know that peddling falsehoods and divisive content is harmful but choose to do it because it makes more money. They also have the ability to wag the dog because their algorithms stick people in echo chambers that just reenforce negativity. They can and do drive people to radicalize because incendiary content drives "engagement" which makes Facebook more money. Suggesting Facebook and cable news (or newspapers) are somehow comparable in their toxicity is a bit ridiculous. You're also doing so in a thread about a Facebook whistleblower. When a CNN or Fox News whistleblower leaks a bunch of documents saying they knowingly aired false or defamatory content to make more money, you can tell about them all you want.