Facebook and Google Serve As Vectors For Misinformation While Hobbling Local Journalism and Collecting Taxpayer Subsidies, Group Says (axios.com) 43
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios: Facebook and Google are hollowing out local communities by serving as vectors for misinformation while hobbling local journalism and collecting taxpayer subsidies, a new paper from progressive think tank the American Economic Liberties Project charges. Both companies cite benefits their platforms offer small businesses as a key defense against critiques of their size and power. The paper, dated Aug. 30, is sure to presage further scrutiny of the impact they've had on local communities.
The brief, by Pat Garofalo, the group's director of state and local policy, argues that: Google doesn't do enough to protect against fraud, allowing scammers to get their own numbers and websites listed on Google to the detriment of legitimate businesses. Facebook, by design, boosts shoddy and sensationalist content, crowding out legitimate local news and information, all as it and Google have come to dominate the local advertising market that was long the lifeblood of community journalism. Both have sucked up potentially billions in local taxpayer dollars via tax breaks as well as subsidies and discounts on utilities they've gotten in exchange for building data centers. Garofalo recommends remedies including more antitrust enforcement at the federal and state levels and an end to preferential treatment by states and localities, either voluntarily or under force of law.
The brief, by Pat Garofalo, the group's director of state and local policy, argues that: Google doesn't do enough to protect against fraud, allowing scammers to get their own numbers and websites listed on Google to the detriment of legitimate businesses. Facebook, by design, boosts shoddy and sensationalist content, crowding out legitimate local news and information, all as it and Google have come to dominate the local advertising market that was long the lifeblood of community journalism. Both have sucked up potentially billions in local taxpayer dollars via tax breaks as well as subsidies and discounts on utilities they've gotten in exchange for building data centers. Garofalo recommends remedies including more antitrust enforcement at the federal and state levels and an end to preferential treatment by states and localities, either voluntarily or under force of law.
serving as vectors for misinformation (Score:1)
Yes, that is what they were created to do. What's with the surprised look?
The subsidies are bigger issue than misinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that is what they were created to do. What's with the surprised look?
Eh...disagree. They weren't created to misinform. They were created to generate ad revenue. They don't want you misinformed. They just don't care much one way or the other, Facebook especially. Facebook is such a cesspool, I avoid it as much as I can. I used to like it. It was great for organizing people and community events. My feed is full of vile and racist posts from people in the redneck area I grew up in and self-righteous obnoxious posts from the people I live near near now in my blue city in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but advert algorithms create bias very well (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they were not made as vectors for misinformation. They were made to generate ad revenue. But, the algorithms they use to generate ad revenues seem to be perfect for spreading misinformation and outright lies by way of creating filter bubbles and cognitive bias. And they do this by continually directing the person to what the algorithm thinks they want to see and hear. People then get trapped by cognitive dissonance in whatever spectrum of group-think they are in, and can be fed lies and other bullshit b
the free market at work (Score:2)
Advertising dollars drive these new kings of media and people who buy the ad services put great value in their ability to get people's attention. Local journalists can't compete with that and they never will, that fight is lost. The value of the work that they do is probably best decoupled from the ad-driven model entirely, although quite how you do that and still survive is a question no one can answer yet. I just think there isn't much point in trying to fight against this any more, like what the ACCC are
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
In a purely practical sense is no integrity required in getting people's attention so if you can do it with lies and sensational garbage then that's what's going to happen.
You can fight that by only going to trusted news sources with integrity, like CNN, and avoiding Google and Facebook completely. Personally I think the government should firewall off untrusted news sources and only let the trusted ones give us information.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to china! All news sources are trusted, if they aren't they do not exist. A good firewall keeps out the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Comrade Xi? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds more like something Trump would propose. Not a day goes by when he doesn't talk about the lying fake news media.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm has not gone undetected. Funnily enough there are trusted news sources out there and in many cases they are publicly funded. Without having to rely on a business model to stay afloat and with some independence and integrity built into their charter the ABC in Australia and BBC in the UK do a pretty good job. PBS Newshour isn't half bad either.
Re: (Score:2)
PBS occasionally is lied to and propagates the lie. They did a fascinating onsite interview in the national museum or Iraq in Baghdad, shortly after the US invasion, with audible crunching of glass as they walked around. It turned out the museum staff had quietly _stolen_ many if not most of the artifacts there, hiding them in bank vaults, their homes, and secret museum storage areas. Many if not most were returned later.
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s... [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is very true. My point was that even the best, publicly funded news sources can propagate a lie.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm completely serious on the ABC. I personally think on a day to day basis for the factual stories, not the editorials, the ABC is one of the most reliable and factual news sources in the world. Of course it has its critics but I always say that the perception of bias in the media says far more about the person who perceives the bias than the news source itself.
The latest "Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020" is also an interesting analysis. It too could be flawed or biased but it ranks the ABC as t
Re: (Score:2)
"New" ? So-called "yellow journalism" dates back to the invention of human storytelling. While the term "yellow journalism" was coined in roughly 1900 for tabloids with no fact checking, It was certainly part of Roman politics during Ceasr's reign over the Roman empire: I think we can safely conclude that it dates back to the first written news.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not new at all. Seems like it has always been this way and yet somehow there was a balance that meant the world didn't end up entirely overrun with tabloid garbage. All kinds of journalism competed for advertising money and those reputable sources stayed alive, kept their loyal readers and their reputation as being trustworthy. The important question for me is: have the social media and search platforms tipped the scales towards the garbage?
So true (Score:1, Troll)
Our local news went downhill long before that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Like many news outlets they switched from news to opinion. That worked for a while but then social media came along and opinion was free and there was more of it than anyone could consume. Even the people writing opinions for the newspapers just find that people follow them on Twitter but don't buy their columns anymore.
The other problem for local news is that it's just not lucrative enough if you aren't selling physical copies. Web advertising rates are way lower than print used to be and the audience is m
Sad, but true (Score:5, Interesting)
So (Score:3)
Whatâ(TM)s the solution? People are choosing it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because we didn't have "social media" advertising networks that amplified it. It's a big problem now.
I see where this is going (Score:1)
That's because we didn't have "social media" advertising networks that amplified it. It's a big problem now.
I remember when people first started saying stupid things like "The second amendment was written back when we only had muskets! The founders couldn't have foreseen assault rifles!". A lot of us at the time tried to illustrate the absurdity of that logic by responding with things like "Well the first amendment was written when we only had the printing press! The founders couldn't have foreseen the internet and social media!".
You weren't supposed to take that response and run with it, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I see where this is going (Score:1)
I don't think fascism is the same as pragmatism, but I guess at least the trains will run on time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"but if schools require kids to have Facebook"
"if" - I haven't heard of schools requiring social media "to stay informed" where is this happening?
They should stick with requiring the National Inquirer.
_Reality_ is a vector for m isinformation (Score:2)
The question is whether it's a particularly effective vector, and whether the bureaucracy of Facebook hinders or encourages it. Misinformation encourages profitable trafic from fools, fools who read advertisements and buy things they don't need. This creates a powerful incentive to _permit_ misinformation and abuse, especially if subscribers will leave if their favorite lies are blocked or debunked.
The American people would rather hear a lie (Score:2)
Unless these facts change, Facebook is going to do what they want.
"Progressive" == control-freak socialist (Score:3, Insightful)
> a new paper from progressive think tank the American Economic Liberties Project
Progressives are control-freak fascist-socialists. Back in "the good old days" they controlled the MSM. They still control the MSM today, but the MSM no longer controls the conversation. Their response is to attempt to shut down all dissenting voices.
This is not a new phenomenon. See https://www.breitbart.com/the-... [breitbart.com]
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s White House feared
> that ***THE INTERNET WAS ALLOWING AVERAGE CITIZENS,
> ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVES, TO BYPASS LEGACY GATEKEEPERS
> AND ACCESS INFORMATION THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DENIED
> TO THEM BY THE MAINSTREAM PRESS.***
>
> The infamous 1995 âoeconspiracy commerce memoâ tried to demonize
> and discredit alternative media outlets on the right to mainstream
> media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.
Re: (Score:2)
> a new paper from progressive think tank the American Economic Liberties Project
Progressives are control-freak fascist-socialists.
Why is it that ignorance fills people with such angry conviction?
People project their pain with the stories they tell themselves about the world. You want a villain to blame, someone else be the cause of your misery, to avoid taking responsibility for your life's (and your social class's) failures. Your life being in the toilet - the country being in the toilet - this is your fault. A product of your ignorance. The way you vote. You want to stop being angry and feel like you have any power, you need to ma
Multilinear map (Score:2)
Amateurs. How about being a multilinear map of misinformation like slashdot?
"potential billions", not "potentially billions" (Score:2)
if only there was some sort of watchdog, (Score:1)
Mainstream media (Score:3)
It's not just facebook and google. The mainstream media in the era of Trump have transformed themselves into vectors of misinformation also. The only difference between the legacy media and social media is that the legacy media are distributing misinformation *intentionally.* Fortunately, most of the misinformation on social media is so outlandish that it is easily detected, while the legacy media is more subtle -- or should we say cunning? -- and therefore insidious.