No, but they could do something about the fake news on network tv.
They also examine your post to see if they think everyone or certain people want to see it. So if you shared the news that you got a new job, they would attempt to figure out which one of your friends would care about that, or more importantly, which friends will comment and share the news.
FB's 15K employees work hard to figure out how to get you to spend the most time possible reading their ads. That's their business model and they're very good at it.
And I believe that Facebook is even creepier with their algorithms. If you remain logged onto FB with your browser but are browsing the web, Facebook records what your're looking at. You know all of those FB Like or FB comments sections on many non-FB pages? Yeah when you see those and remain logged onto FB, they record that you looked at that web page. Helps them determine what you want to see in terms of posts and ads.
One of these days I'm going to have to get on Facebook. Maybe. Nah.
I still have more of an issue with newsrooms that should know better. CNN currently has the main story as Clapper resigning as if it isn't normal and not until inauguration day. The main story would be if Trump kept him on. But CNN is making this out as if it is the end of the world. But I blame myself for caring about CNN.
"(my friend) likes Vintage Porn"
I replied with "lol"
She came back with something about it being a misunderstanding because she was liking a vintage furniture website. Yeah, I don't know how any of that $#@! works, but that is creepy to have that $#@! pop up.
Last edited by The Missing Link; 11-17-2016 at 02:10 PM.
The line has blurred between impartial anchor and political commentator. I don't believe it was or is now a common understanding that Hannity doesn't consider himself a journalist. I like to think I follow the news but I didn't realize he felt this way about himself. Fox News should be more upfront about that. And potentially the same with some CNN anchors.
Not too mention that cable news should be about 10-20% political news with an uptick during elections. And close to 100% around the election day. Instead it's more like 90% all the time. Even business news comes from a political angle. "The Dow is up/down today, is this because of what happened in Washington this morning?"
Ultimately it gets down to being a problem with democracy and saying that some people aren't allowed to have an opinion, right? That's a dangerous slippery slope.
Last edited by FondrenRoad; 11-17-2016 at 02:12 PM.
There's path that goes:
Just the facts, ma'am -> "Reputable" news sources -> Acceptably partisan news sources -> Partisan rags -> Partisan liars -> The National Enquirer
The crazy stuff isn't all that dangerous since it's pretty clearly crazy (I hope). The liars, which includes Breitbart (I don't read enough Huffpo to make a judgement there) are the dangerous ones in my opinion. The more believable the lies, the more dangerous it is, since it creeps into our collective discourse as truth. That map is an outright lie - if your child tried to pull something like that, you'd be all over it.
I'm not a big fan of suppressing speech, even on a private platform (which is why we're all here, not some other site), but surely there's a way to improve the level of discourse, right? We're rapidly slipping into idiocracy.
I think they should stay, but shoud be open if they are fake AND should have a page of sponsors/endorsements the channel or parent company has given. Say I go to CNN of FOX, there should be a page on their website that tells me who all their sponsors are, and who if any political campaigns they or their parent has given to. That way you can go in with a bit of skepticism of an article about Clinton on Fox when clearly their owner and sponsors are in the tank with the GOP.
Present all the information and let the person come to their own decision as to trust a site or not. Having a list of sites that are "Fake" or "Real" when there is no clear reasoning for why they are on the list lends an opening for there to be a bias. Just print whatever story you want, tell me who sponsors you and who you sponsor and I will come to my own conclusions.
Last edited by SilentJay; 11-17-2016 at 03:59 PM.
As for "legitimate" sites spewing out click-bait, and I use the term "legitimate" loosely, that does become extremely difficult.
It becomes much more difficult when you factor in the sites that are scraping content from "legitimate" sites. It's amazing how easy it is to automate that stuff, and setup a site that looks legitimate. That goes into a completely different area though (copyright, etc.).
Actually, I think it was going to become a problem that had to be addressed regardless of who won. In the past 2 years, I've blocked more clickbait/fake news sites in my Facebook stream, both from friends who like/share that $#@!, and from the sponsored content/"things you might like" (or whatever) than I had in the past 5 years.Rest assured that much of the motivation behind wanting to do this now is that Trump won the election. If Hillary won, do you really think this would be a hot issue, like it is now?
Clearly the answer is no.
It's just that it would have been addressed in a more quiet manner, and on a different timeline - some companies would be more aggressive than others.
In the past, the bigger problem was websites gaming Google's search-engine algorithms to pump themselves up in the search rankings, which meant an increase in viewers/advertising revenue.
Now, websites can completely bypass Google through social networks/sharing. I've seen new sites pumping out stuff that's shared a hundred thousand times, before they ever get properly indexed and ranked by Google and visited by 100 people through Google's search engine.
Is Fortune a "fake news" site?
Because there are absolutely no facts to back up this claim.
There has been a steady drumbeat of criticism aimed at Twitter and its failure to take action to stop hate speech on the platform, apart from certain special cases, including an incident in July when black actor and comedian Leslie Jones was targeted by racists.
After Jones said she was quitting the service due to the unrelenting harassment, Dorsey reached out to her. Shortly afterwards, Milo Yiannopolous, the technology editor of right-wing site Breitbart News and a proponent of various “alt-right” views—including the need for races to live separately—had his account permanently banned.http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/twitter-ban-alt-right/Perhaps outright racist remarks like those made towards Leslie Jones seem like an obvious candidate for removal.
They play coy by breaking the text up into two separate sections but the implication is clear. They are trying to say that Milo was banned because of racist tweets. There is no mention of the fact that Milo never tweeted anything racist. All he did was criticize her movie.
This is "reporting" designed to mislead.
However, this has zero persuasive effect. All they will do is preach to the choir. This will convince no one. All anyone has to do is a quick Google search to see this is a lie, which will lead to even further mistrust of the news.
And they will make this mistake over and over and over again.
They think they can publish untruth because Facebook and Twitter control their content. We'll see how long that lasts.
And a completely different problem - astroturfing has been much worse in 2016 than it was in 2012, because of social networking.
In 2012, there were a lot of astroturfers for various candidates, pumping out messages through various forums. Some of those companies were paying by the post.
Now, you still have that, but they are also paying by the social media shares (hence the millions of fake twitter accounts), they are getting paid to take favorable stories about the candidates and pump them out through Facebook and various online forums, etc.
Both are a problem for Facebook, Google, twitter, etc. and separating the astroturfers from the clickbaiters who only care about advertising revenue can be very difficult.
Facebook is at a bit of a crossroads, and a lot of people who produce content have found it a blessing and a curse. For some stuff I do, I've been able to use Facebook (and twitter) to help promote some stuff. On the one hand, I can spend a lot of time on an article or how-to, and promote through one of my Facebook pages/groups, and it's great. On the other hand, within a day or two somebody else will have scraped it, taken the title and re-worded a bit (perhaps made it clickbait worthy), and pushed it through Facebook/twitter. I have to spend time policing that stuff, and it's frustrating. It's also frustrating for Facebook, etc.
And the more people use ad-blockers, the worse it could get, as the clickbait companies do all kinds of dodgy $#@! to get around them.
I don't see the fortune story openly criticizing the Milo guy. Seems like they post some facts and didn't he have his account suspended or banned? If he wasn't suspended or banned when this story was posted, he has a reason to be upset at the implication.
He called her barely literate because she had a typo in one of her tweets. Is that racist? I see that all the time. He made fun of her because she made a typo. It's kind of petty but how is that racist? Because the person who made the typo is black?
Leslie Jones does look like a dude. She's black. She looks like a dude. How is that racist? He offended her because she's ugly, not because she's black.
What's racist now?
Are we calling anything that hurts a black person's feelings "racist" now, whether or not it disparages their blackness? Because that certainly seems like the standard these days.
Or rather, what label can you use to get the most people on your side regardless of any objective standard. I think that's the new standard of racism --> "If you can use the term 'racist' about something and get a whole bunch people on your side and upset, then it's racist."
Even the purveyors of Fake News are amazed at the mass deficit in critical thinking and keep cashing the checks.
I'd add that Trump’s bitter complaints about the MSMedia and the intimidation media was subjected to at his rallies doesn’t seem to have been about actually wanting “fair” treatment by MSM at all. I strongly suspect it is more about completely delegitimizing the MSM as a source for anything and appealing to his populace to abandon it outright in favor of their own alt-ernate information stream.
It really doesn't make a $#@! to Trump and Bannon what the MSM thinks because it's obvious Bannon has harnessed non-MSM information stream. I'm not using the words 'propaganda arm' to describe it but that's debatable. Viral Fake News through social media is the other arm.
The ones that have fake celebrity deaths should be sued into Bolivia.
The media doesn't care about facts, facts don't pay the bills, money does
And fake media on social websites will continue as long as people are dumb enough to keep clicking on them
Football .. OC .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA .. Classics
Bada Bing .. Bernard .. Nerdz .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Bellmont