Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eveln

Why shouldn't Face Book give you the news ?

Recommended Posts

And yet another FB account is closed. Given the millions still currently on board it's probably no biggie. Unless of course the millions still on FB are also die-hard Star Wars fans. Cos this time it's Mark Hamill who's exited stage left.

Then again it probably wouldn't bother any current fans of SW, as they likely don't even know who Mark is ... especially now he's closed his FB account.

Reason Mark closed it is that FB won't censor the 'news ' content to weed out he fake news . 

It seems any news gets a look in on FB. Unlike twitter and Instagram apparently. From what I read today Twitter won't be allowing political news - I think that's what it said, I'll have to go look in a minute. Not sure what's happening on Instagram atm.

 

Frankly, I don't see why FB or any of the social media should censor their news content. I mean it's social media ffs, probably about the only place, aside from commercial tv, where people get to see what is or isn't going on 😉

Think about it, all the other news carriers get to put their 'news'  ( opinion pieces parading as news ) out there so why shouldn't FB ?

 

The new age of critical thought being taught

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-14/mark-hamill-deletes-facebook-account-over-ad-policy/11866688

"... criticising its founder Mark Zuckerberg's decision to allow political advertisements to contain false statements ahead of the 2020 presidential election in the United States. ... "

Edited by eveln
for link and content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Social Media and it's news will one day be realised to be the crock that it is.

But given the idiocracy that the world is fast becoming I sort of doubt it.

 

I've seen plenty of YT videos up claiming that Mark Hamill is slamming the current crop of Star Wars movies (mainline, not anthologies).

But for reasons of "spoiler alert" (having not seen the last 2) and not particularly giving a shit I've not looked into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go back in up there and put in yet another edit, but really I can just say it here ...

It's more about the correctness of political advertising for the 2020 elections, than just everyday news ... So my bad there.

 

But still, social media is there so people get their sound bites at the tap of their latest gadget ...

 

... and well " true"  and " false"  is subjective yeah ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with social media is it ain’t social and it ain’t the media.

 

I don’t believe humans were made to consume that much data - some of us simply can’t process it and end up believing bullshit. More importantly that bullshit gets reenforcement from algorithms that push more of this shit on you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

Reached the point where ads can be more believable than content...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Leonid said:

 

 

I don’t believe humans were made to consume that much data - some of us simply can’t process it and end up believing bullshit. More importantly that bullshit gets reenforcement from algorithms that push more of this shit on you.

That's always been the case, regardless of how the info is relayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leonid said:

The problem with social media is it ain’t social and it ain’t the media.

 

 

more truth than all of facepage combined

 

10 hours ago, Leonid said:

I don’t believe humans were made to consume that much data - some of us  a large number of simpletons can’t process it and end up believing bullshit. More importantly that bullshit gets reenforcement from algorithms that push more of this shit on you.

 

fixed that for you

 

antisocial webfill adds to anxiety and paranoia, and is a self perpetuating shitstorm

 

it's like the worst aspects of fox and the abc had a love child

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 8:13 PM, eveln said:

Frankly, I don't see why FB or any of the social media should censor their news content. I mean it's social media ffs, probably about the only place, aside from commercial tv, where people get to see what is or isn't going on 😉

 

I guess you missed the whole Cambridge Analytica thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kimmo said:

 

I guess you missed the whole Cambridge Analytica thing...

Nup. IIRC that was about harvesting members personal data, and then doing other nefarious shite.

This is just about the content of advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. That 'other nefarious shite' is what I was alluding to. 

 

You know, interfering with fucken elections

 

Mostly via very tightly targeted political ads, almost 100% fake news. They were able to fork out such blatant bullshit because they knew their audience so well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so you think it should be left to the news sites and The Guardian to shell out shonky political advertising. 

Rightio 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think shonky stuff not on Facebook gets shared less than shonky stuff on it. Just a gut feeling there, mind you. I'm not going to claim any solid evidence. But that would be one reason to avoid the advertising on social media. 

 

I have read that stuff shared is more powerful because you are more likely to implicitly believe what your mate shares because you trust them more than an ad, evening if they are sharing an ad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

I have read that stuff shared is more powerful because you are more likely to implicitly believe what your mate shares because you trust them more than an ad, evening if they are sharing an ad. 

 

that's the most insidious advertising, and the one facebook makes a living from

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then by what @fliptopia and @scruffy1 say, fb is making it so that you can't or shouldn't trust your friends.

More and more I am glad not to be on any of them.

... Still though, one can't really blame one's friends for one's inept political choices can one ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kimmo said:

 

I guess you missed the whole Cambridge Analytica thing...

Dunno if you're up with Atomic of late, but there's a good bet at least 80% of participants in this thread don't use 'social media'.

FB wants all the money from publishing ads, but none of the responsibility for not allowing libel to not just be published but to spread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See now I reckon this is more concerning just now, tbh ...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-16/facebook-glitch-cancelled-14000-dollar-bushfire-fundraiser/11873456

 

" Rural Fire Service (RFS) volunteer Nadine Gaffney and her community spent three months fundraising for fire victims, but on the eve of handing out the funds, Facebook accidently cancelled her effort.

Key points:

  • Nadine Gaffney's Facebook fundraiser for bushfire relief attracted $14,108
  • Facebook said a notification error meant it couldn't get the verification information needed to ensure the integrity of the fundraiser
  • Facebook now says it will "cover the cost of the fundraiser, including payment processing fees"

 

The Facebook fundraising page had more than $14,000 in the kitty from donors.

The disappearance of the funds stunned the small northern New South Wales community of Ewingar, which was one of the first areas hit by this season's wave of devastating bushfires.

Ms Gaffney is exhausted, not only by the fires but by the bureaucracy of dealing with endless emails and phone calls to Facebook.

Her voices quavers and breaks as she tells the story.

"We were just about to distribute the money, and to have $14,000 lost, it's really going to impact on the people who have lost their houses," she said. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 5:57 PM, Nich... said:

Dunno if you're up with Atomic of late, but there's a good bet at least 80% of participants in this thread don't use 'social media'.

FB wants all the money from publishing ads, but none of the responsibility for not allowing libel to not just be published but to spread.

 

I'm not sure I follow - why would not using social media preclude anyone from a regular diet of quality journalism (which would ensure at least a passing familiarity with that epic scandal)? 

 

I'm inclined to think that folks lapping up the corporate propaganda that passes for journalism in much of the mainstream media are more likely to be unaware of it... That factor might be more relevant

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

I'm not sure I follow - why would not using social media preclude anyone from a regular diet of quality journalism (which would ensure at least a passing familiarity with that epic scandal)?

Because they're getting their news about what social media is/isn't from, basically, tabloid scandals.  Moral panic all the way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Because they're getting their news about what social media is/isn't from, basically, tabloid scandals.  Moral panic all the way down.

 

Not to mention that Kimmo's "diet of quality journalism" is basically reporters barely out of high school reviewing reactions to outrage on Twitter.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Not to mention that Kimmo's "diet of quality journalism" is basically reporters barely out of high school reviewing reactions to outrage on Twitter.

 

Now that really is an asinine comment Leo, I've been trying not to bite but enough is enough.

 

What the hell defines a good journalist ? I highly fucking doubt it is age, in fact probably not, most journos tend to get cynical and burn out.

 

The Guardian is actually one of the more august of media outlets and actively distances itself from influence - you might want to look into it.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

What the hell defines a good journalist ? I highly fucking doubt it is age, in fact probably not, most journos tend to get cynical and burn out.


I don’t know what necessarily defines a good journalist but when I find said journalists repeating #woke fuckwits from Twitter as if it’s investigative analysis or objective reporting - I know that’s bad journalism.

 

You mentioned The Guardian trying to distance itself from Influence. One of their Aussie reporters (Van Badham) identifies as a communist. Their UK sister paper has contributed more MPs to the upper echelons of the institutionally racist Labour Party out of their pool of “journalists” than any other paper to any other party.

 

The term “Guardianista” is popular lexicon among English Conservatives, the formerly Labour-aligned working constituencies and most centrists:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Guardianista


We all know what good non-party-hack journalism looks like. The Atlantic is a perfect example. Pravda on the Thames, is not.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

 By that measure, which by the way I find ridiculous the last bastion of realistic journalism would be The Sun....

 

Communism per se is not inherently bad you know, it's just when it is applied to societies.

 

To give you an example a well run commune, and they do exist, is an effective form of communism.

 

I really do not expect a Russian emigre to understand that though - you were polluted from birth...

 

I' m at a loss to know what form of government you really think is preferable, you seem to sneer at all of them - do not tell me that at heart you are an anarchist ?

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, chrisg said:

To give you an example a well run commune, and they do exist, is an effective form of communism.


A commune is interesting.

Communists advocate for communes but as soon as you scale up, communism-in-practice asserts itself and everything goes to shit.

15 minutes ago, chrisg said:

I’m at a loss to know what form of government you really think is preferable, you seem to sneer at all of them - do not tell me that at heart you are an anarchist ?

 

Cheers


I’ve no idea why. I’ve stated many times that I’m a small-l libertarian.

 

Basically, a nuanced version of “stay out of my bedroom, stay out of my business”

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×