![Facebook Facebook](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/facebook_64.png)
![Communications Communications](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/communications_64.png)
![Network Network](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/network_64.png)
![Social Networks Social Networks](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/social_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Facebook Will Now Ask Users To Rank News Organizations They Trust (recode.net) 140
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: Facebook is doing a very un-Facebooky thing: It's going to start declaring that some news sources you see in your Facebook feed are better than others, and act accordingly. But Facebook being Facebook, it's going about it in the most Facebooky way possible: It's going to rely on users -- not the super-smart people who work at Facebook -- to figure out which of those sources are better. Mark Zuckerberg says the move is part of an effort to prioritize "news that is trustworthy, informative, and local," within the network and suggests that there will be more announcements to come. The one he describes today will prioritize what kind of news sources pop up in your Facebook News Feed, and will reward ones that Facebook thinks are "broadly trusted," based on user polls, so it can "build a sense of common ground." Facebook is also using today's news to refine last week's roll-out: Zuckerberg says the previously announced changes will reduce the amount of news stories people see in their feed to 4 percent, down from 5 percent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox News, InfoWars, Art Bell. That's really all you need right there.
Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.
Re: Easy. I'll use all my logins (Score:1)
Yeah, we should force people to read things they don't want to.. Because we're smarter and know what's best. And also white liberals.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes."
So it's good that there are 2 billion alt-left people there too.
Re: Easy. I'll use all my logins (Score:4, Funny)
The "alt-left" wants nothing to do with liberals, labor unionists, socialists, communists, skeptics, humanists, or New Deal style progressives. That pretty well eliminates their mass support.
I really doubt the world has even a million self loathing, socially degenerate, openly bigoted running dog stooges of big capital. It's just that the few who do exist get a whole fucking lot of airtime from the propaganda organs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.
Everyone else does it and we're even forced to it. We're not allowed in the other medias so .. what's the obvious and only solution?
It's so fucking sad, mental and hillariously non-hillariously destructive that the freedom-hating socialists get away with making claims like "we need to start treating each other with respect!" as an answer to arguments with a harsh tone (note: It's not a counter-argument) after having called us racists and nazis for decades. Yeah.. About that: No. They should be called social
Re: (Score:1)
"The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes"
Might as well add the Huffington Post, MSNBC, Slate, and others to that list. Echo-chambers exist on both sides and are equally stupid no matter what their political leanings.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
As will the left with fake news CNN, MSNBC, etc
Re: (Score:2)
Just so, but why nothing approximating a constructive solution? If I ever saw a mod point, I wouldn't "invest" an insightful mod in such a trivial observation.
So now I should bet that my longer and more substantive comment below will never see the light of a mod point, except perhaps negative ones from some of the angry and threatened sock puppets? If my constructive suggestion were actually implemented, they would certainly be invisible and dead to me.
Re: (Score:1)
People are already split into camps as to which sources they trust. They're not going to start believing CNN or Fox just because Facebook tells them to.
Re: (Score:1)
"Fox News, InfoWars, Art Bell. That's really all you need right there."
And the Aryan 2 White Noise machine, so that you can sleep at night without having to think about equality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dailykoz.com, snopes, thehill, huffpo, and goatse is all the wokeness you need.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... the Trump fans will all give Fox News and Breitbart top rankings, while slamming NPR and the New York Times.
Democrats will do the exact opposite, basically insuring that most major news sites will have a "Neutral" rating.
The Daily Show (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you didn't read the GP post carefully enough. I'm pretty sure that as long as the show remains on a cable network that is available almost exclusively in the U.S., what the GP said will probably always be true.
Re: (Score:2)
And some of us went to Reuters, AP, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Daily Show (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Users read news on network A
2. Users use information they read on network A to decide which network is "trustworthy" (network A of course)
3. Network A becomes "trustworthy"
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Cos it is banned outside the USA...
Oh, really? I've no trouble accessing the show outside the USA [youtube.com].
Dear Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ever want me back, you'll let me check a box that:
1) Only shows me content created by friends
2) Makes it come in chronological order
Everything else is pointless.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
This will in no way be abused by ideologues asking their millions of flunkies to upvote their favorite extremist 'news' organizations without a second thought.
Re: abuse (Score:3)
I think the bigger danger is what "broadly trusted" means. It means more penetration to the media players who are already rich, with independent voices pushed out. I'll take free speech anyday.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what they want.
But I'd say that's already the case. Only it will become worse. But it's definitely not free and at equal means as is.
More limited and monoton? Yes.
Remove some illusionary freedom we already have? We don't have it as is (In Europe, in the US you don't necessary have it either but you're at-least better off.)
Re: (Score:2)
...or the Russian trolls being paid to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
...or the Russian trolls being paid to do so.
Why does it matter where they are from?
For USA vs Russia maybe, as humans or from an ideological stand-point not at all.
Our Swedish government already pay interest groups to act on social media and in society and support media and try to shut down opinions they don't like and jail people of the wrong opinions and their private thought police make people lose their jobs and threaten people and so on.
So so fucking what that Russia try to spread their agenda too? Pretty sure Israel and USA is pretty good at i
Paid ideologically driven abuse? (Score:2)
Moderately insightful branch of the discussion. I can actually answer in terms of my longer suggestion below:
The earned public reputation should be based on several dimensions, but the dimensions should NOT be related to ideology or positions on specific issues. Or if there are some dimensions of that sort, then I think they should be discounted in the default settings and people would have to enable them if they really want to. (I'm imagining a "Trump" dimension that assesses positive or negative sentiment
Re: (Score:2)
abused by ideologues asking their millions of flunkies to upvote . . . without a second thought
Abuse? Usually we call that an "election."
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares?
People are being asked to rate their own preference, if I read it right.
At worst, their feed becomes an echo chamber.
You are free to do the same.
How is asking your followers to follow you abuse?
lol (Score:1)
$(news group that doesn't support my political views)=fake
Very bad idea (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why Facebook wants to do this as it doesn't give them any information (political leanings) that they don't already know and they probably risk pissing off whichever groups hav
Re: (Score:1)
But they don't want people to be skeptical.
They want to encourage group-think and follow the stream. Obviously it should be THEIR stream but ..
The sad part is that they call it democracy and working against fake news and made up stories and lies.
Democracy is the new system for fact selection (Score:5, Insightful)
We now can select our facts by majority opinion.
Next we can take down science as it is a social construct with a bias toward western culture and straight white men specifically. We instead can have a plurality of accepted "facts" and have equally valid viewpoints that we label as science. Instead of logical arguments, a western concept that reeks of colonialism, we can operate based on consensus building and equal time for all sides. Democratic science and culturally sensitive "facts".
Total bullshit of course, and perhaps an early signal that society is descending into madness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would that ever happen?
Especially considering what agenda those in charge want to push.
But ANY such scenario is scary. Not just the ones the globalists & socialists doesn't like.
Got Fermi? (Score:2)
Maybe this explains the Fermi Paradox. Advanced civilizations eventually invent Social Media and rot from the inside before they can develop interstellar travel.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps an early signal that society is descending into madness.
I think social media in general exchanges rational behavior for attention seeking narcissism. The more extreme your behavior, the more attention you get which is normal but social media exploits to provide dopamine feedback for attention. If you aren't convinced then just look at the Tide Pod Challenge.
Social media is highly exploitative.
Re: (Score:2)
I think social media in general exchanges rational behavior for attention seeking narcissism. The more extreme your behavior, the more attention you get which is normal but social media exploits to provide dopamine feedback for attention.
I honestly have no idea where to find all these "attention seeking narcissists" that /.ers are always talking about. Maybe you're thinking of YouTube? On Facebook, all I ever see are:
If all that adds up to hideous narcissism to you, all I can say is you must be fun at parties.
Tech before Society (Score:1)
I think my main complaint is that individuals haven't improved their bullshit filters as quickly as technology has ramped up content distribution and flow rate of said bullshit. Not an easy problem to solve either. But I'm well in my right to demand improvements even if I don't wish to be the architect of a new society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're free to identify Pi with as many decimal places as you find comfortable. Like opinions, all values of Pi are equally valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want pi to be 0 because pie is round.
Re: (Score:2)
If ones' identity is not founded in any verifiable information (what you do, your physical b
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK if you didn't understand the reference, but it's not necessary for you to go into personal attacks and false accusations of my political views.
Reading list for you (summary/abstract/cliffsnotes are fine, I don't expect you to invest a lot of time):
The Two Cultures [wikipedia.org] - C. P. Snow
The Science Wars [wikipedia.org]
Sokal Affair [wikipedia.org] - very funny and kind of depressing. Hoax paper proposed that quantum gravity has progressive political implications. And goes on to link ZF set theory and axiom of choice to feminism. Real hilariou
Re: (Score:1)
I was pretty specific about Sokal's paper and what was in it. I'm not wrong in the literal sense. I also didn't state that it was about "liberals don't do science", I only stated it was a form of culture jamming. Feel free to interpret the paper to be more about the submission and review process of papers than about the claptrap that come out of some small minority of humanities academics. (I make the distinction rather than use your term liberal, because I don't think you know what that word means)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like you allowed yourself to be triggered by the first sentence of his post and didn't bother reading the rest of it.
Will alternative news sources be included? (Score:2)
They had better include (Score:2)
I won't answer any poll that does not provide a none of the above option on all of their questions.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't there be an option for Cowboy Neal in all the polls?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Facebook so stupid? (Score:2)
I think it's because the objective of Facebook is so stupid. NOT the objectives of the people who want to use Facebook. It's the mismatch between their objectives and what Facebook wants that is creating such stupidity.
Facebook just wants your time and phuck you if you care about good time versus wasted time.
The OBVIOUS (ttMCO) countermeasure to this stupid idea is to create fake news sources more quickly. It also leaves the trolls and their sock puppets in place so that they can quickly link to the new fak
Pay for ranks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how long will it take for major news organizations to figure out a way they can use the built in advertising to boost their ranks and better position themselves? Facebook relies on advertising money. If suddenly major advertisers are being ranked low do you really think Facebook will allow that? How long till companies are paying for better ranking?
Facebook may find a way to charge news outlets for *verified* status and thus another stream of revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that the Russian trolls will just hire troll armies and click farms to upvote all of their fake news posts just enough to insure that their feeds do not get shut down.
If that doesn't work, they'll just use those same people to promote new legitimate sounding news organizations to popularity every few weeks.
A few things (Score:2)
2: If it only shows you news sources that you select as "trustworthy", well, then many people will be enjoying their own personal echo chamber. Neat.
3: If it uses mass aggregate results to select the "trus
Can't trust ANY of them anymore. (Score:2)
Next up (Score:2)
Facebook will next offer a product that uses Venn diagrams to best show the similarities and differences between the people and products on their site. Oh the humanity.
--
You said it.
CNN is fucked (Score:1)
The Guardian (Score:2)
Echo Chamber (Score:2)
I don't want to hear anything that might not confirm my bias!
Politicians, faiths, nations and SJW get clicking (Score:2)
Up vote the national broadcaster with the good news about the nation.
Down vote the negative international press about corruption, trade deals, pollution.
Up vote for tourism and happy news.
SJW can ban news about any political topic they don't like. No more news about illegal migrants.
Got a new movie? Up vote the good reviews. Ban the negative reviews and remove the accounts of the negative reviewers.
Every movie review
Better method (Score:1)
I've got a much better method to make it more neutral.
Let me note what sources I trust and what sources I don't trust. Let me make that decision, not piles of others from who knows where, and likely gaming the system. Or at least offer me the option of using my own trust scores instead of the default, probably tilted to the far left (but yes, maybe titled to the alt-right Infowars types as well if the system gets gamed).
Swell. Another echo chamber. (Score:1)
Facebook Will Now Ask Users To Rank News Organizat (Score:2)
Doublespeak, Facebook looks for the best outlets for propaganda.
Lipstick on a pig... (Score:1)
Past it's prime (Score:1)
What do I care about what 10 million facebook users think about what I want to see? They went from being a great way to keep in touch with your friends to the equivalent of an ongoing job interview where you better not say or like the wrong thing. I give them 5 years and they will be joining the ranks of AOL, Yahoo and dozens of other internet giants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Where do you have your swastika tattoo?
Nowhere since that would be illegal. Otherwise I may have had one on the hand or something, but more likely I would just wear it on clothes or as pin or use it on paper slips or put it up on places with a pen or what not.
Re: (Score:1)
Nowhere since that would be illegal.
I'm assuming you are living in a regressive country without 1st Amendment protection... Europe ?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Just wow. There's a plague of downright-insane SJWs like AmiMoJo or serviscope_minor, but you just managed to beat them all the other way. That's kind of rare for something that's not a throw-away troll spam account.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks.
I'm always right though.
For instance you don't see people like me modding down the communists posts into non-existance whereas they do it.
They always blame the other / our side but it's themselves who are in power, themselves who remove freedom and democracy, themselves who want to destroy identity and nurture it at the same time (depending on whose identity it is of course, destroy all white/european people but keep racism for their own socialist agendas by grouping all other ethnicities together an
Re: (Score:1)
I actually kinda want to have my passwords and a request to have all my accounts changed to my real name and all my posts turned to public as a testament.
Maybe there's some individual post for privacy reasons which shouldn't be so but .. Yeah. To spread the real thoughts and information rather than the false stuff society/rulers claim is the one which exist when they have tidied away all the stuff they didn't liked.