4 ms·

And yet, my comments and posts can reach thousands of viewers with very little effort. There's no way I could do that with traditional media.

ricardobeat 2y ago
And that is a good thing. That’s the whole point. You should go through a few layers of validation (journalist who has professional ethics, a publishing company with legal responsibility, etc). Especially if yours is a reasonable and polite voice. The guy who screams murder daily, spreads blood-boiling fake news and constantly causes controversy is gonna beat you by miles.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  > journalist who has professional ethics More like journalist who has to follow the editorial guidelines imposed by a billionaire owner more interested in protecting his interests than letting the public know the truth > Especially if yours is a reasonable and polite voice. The guy who screams murder daily, spreads blood-boiling fake news and constantly causes controversy is gonna beat you by miles. That is just a result of the economic incentives of social media. Monetization is based on the amount of views/followers, which are driven by rage bait content. The solution to this issue is rooted in economics.
  - ricardobeat 2y ago
    There are impartiality rules to stop owners from directly influencing the content in media companies. While they can still exert influence via editorial direction, investments, and personal power, it's unquestionably against the rules and you have an entire structure of editors, writers and reporters who have sworn an oath and have clear incentives to keep their credibility intact. Another important aspect is that you, the reader, actually have a choice of which vehicles will earn your money and eyeballs. Even when those interventions happened, they are a lot more subtle than turning an election completely around in a couple months. It's still game-able but a far cry from such billionaires directly controlling algorithms which dictate exactly the kind of content you're seeing, where and when. > The solution to this issue is rooted in economics. How so? In what plausible scenario does intellectually-stimulating, rational content would win over engagement-driven content?
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
your comments don't "reach" anyone, they just become part of a vast cacophony which is on the whole algorithmically manipulated to suit the ends of other people who are far more powerful than yourself.

ricardobeat 2y ago

And that is a good thing. That’s the whole point. You should go through a few layers of validation (journalist who has professional ethics, a publishing company with legal responsibility, etc). Especially if yours is a reasonable and polite voice. The guy who screams murder daily, spreads blood-boiling fake news and constantly causes controversy is gonna beat you by miles.

ossobuco 2y ago
> journalist who has professional ethics More like journalist who has to follow the editorial guidelines imposed by a billionaire owner more interested in protecting his interests than letting the public know the truth > Especially if yours is a reasonable and polite voice. The guy who screams murder daily, spreads blood-boiling fake news and constantly causes controversy is gonna beat you by miles. That is just a result of the economic incentives of social media. Monetization is based on the amount of views/followers, which are driven by rage bait content. The solution to this issue is rooted in economics.
- ricardobeat 2y ago
  There are impartiality rules to stop owners from directly influencing the content in media companies. While they can still exert influence via editorial direction, investments, and personal power, it's unquestionably against the rules and you have an entire structure of editors, writers and reporters who have sworn an oath and have clear incentives to keep their credibility intact. Another important aspect is that you, the reader, actually have a choice of which vehicles will earn your money and eyeballs. Even when those interventions happened, they are a lot more subtle than turning an election completely around in a couple months. It's still game-able but a far cry from such billionaires directly controlling algorithms which dictate exactly the kind of content you're seeing, where and when. > The solution to this issue is rooted in economics. How so? In what plausible scenario does intellectually-stimulating, rational content would win over engagement-driven content?

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

your comments don't "reach" anyone, they just become part of a vast cacophony which is on the whole algorithmically manipulated to suit the ends of other people who are far more powerful than yourself.