In Georgia, Facebook's Changes Brought Back a Partisan News Feed (themarkup.org) 107
An anonymous reader shares a report: As Georgians head to the polls to vote on their two U.S. Senators -- and effectively, partisan control of Congress -- on Tuesday, voters face an online landscape far different from what they saw in the weeks surrounding November's general election. In the fall, Facebook -- by far the most popular social network -- clamped down on sponsored posts about politics in order to ensure that misinformation would not spread the way that it had during the 2016 presidential election. But a few weeks before the Georgia race, Facebook turned off this safeguard in Georgia. The Markup decided to take a look behind the curtain to see if we could determine the impact on Georgia voters' news feeds. We recruited a panel of 58 Facebook users in the state and paid them to allow us to monitor their feeds, starting in late November, using custom software we built for our Citizen Browser project. The Citizen Browser project is a data-driven initiative to examine what content social media companies choose to amplify to their users.
While Facebook's controls were in place, we found that links to traditional news sites were present in almost all election-related posts that appeared on our Georgia panelists' feeds. After Dec. 16, however, when Facebook flipped the switch to turn on political advertising for the Georgia election, we noticed that partisan content quickly elbowed out news sites, replacing a significant proportion of mentions of the election in our users' feeds. The Markup defined election-related content as anything containing mentions of Trump or Biden, the names of the four major-party senate candidates, or the terms "senate," "vote," "election," or "ballot." We looked at the URLs attached to those election-related posts and tabulated the most common domains. For the first half of the month, the most commonly appearing election-related content came primarily from news outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But after Dec. 16, just over one third of the most commonly appearing domains were partisan campaign sites buying ads, including WrongForGeorgia.com, an attack site targeting the Democratic candidates; and DeserveBetter.org, an attack site targeting the incumbent Republican senators. We discarded any domains that only appeared on a single panelist's feed.
While Facebook's controls were in place, we found that links to traditional news sites were present in almost all election-related posts that appeared on our Georgia panelists' feeds. After Dec. 16, however, when Facebook flipped the switch to turn on political advertising for the Georgia election, we noticed that partisan content quickly elbowed out news sites, replacing a significant proportion of mentions of the election in our users' feeds. The Markup defined election-related content as anything containing mentions of Trump or Biden, the names of the four major-party senate candidates, or the terms "senate," "vote," "election," or "ballot." We looked at the URLs attached to those election-related posts and tabulated the most common domains. For the first half of the month, the most commonly appearing election-related content came primarily from news outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But after Dec. 16, just over one third of the most commonly appearing domains were partisan campaign sites buying ads, including WrongForGeorgia.com, an attack site targeting the Democratic candidates; and DeserveBetter.org, an attack site targeting the incumbent Republican senators. We discarded any domains that only appeared on a single panelist's feed.
Partisan News Feed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like "hate speech" as a concept, the "non partisan" is a stupid, flawed goal. Like "hate speech", it will only be "non partisan" if **I** am the one who decides what is hate speech and what is "non partisan."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Partisan News Feed (Score:2, Insightful)
... the white-wing billionaire takeover of the US
Thatâ(TM)s a rather strange thing to call Bezos, Dorsey and Suckerberg, considering they are the bosses of your oh-so-esteemed Obama and nearly every other Plantation Party supposed-non-racist but whatever excites you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well rather the idea that journalists are supposed to be unbiased is a blatant invented myth. The entire point of journalism is to influence readers/viewers.
And the sad reality is that when most people say "I want an unbiased news source" what they really mean is "I want a news source that presents the narrative I wish was true rather than what actually is true."
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to be influenced by facts. I'm even willing to be influenced by opinion. Just be honest about which you're presenting to me. And if you're going t o try to choose which facts I receive, well, that used to be called censorship, and it used to be considered incompatible with journalism.
Fortunately the Internet is a strong cure for censorship, if you take the cure.
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fortunately the Internet is a strong cure for censorship, if you take the cure."
Not anymore. That is the whole point of this. A few core news sites are now being used by monopoly media platforms as the basis for filters allowing nearly complete AI massaged censorship at unprecedented scale. We might as well be behind the great firewall, it is just being run by big tech rather than government.
Re: Partisan News Feed (Score:2)
I'm still able to find sources for factual reporting on events. Those that provide court documents, verbatim statements, that sort of thing. Just not many of the mainstream sources do that. You have to look further.
Re: (Score:2)
News doesn't sell well. Hyperbole does. The market for factual news has been drying up over time, no one wants to know what happened in the courts really, though they want to hear a yea vs nay from the SCOTUS as long as they don't have to be tortured by details. Crime stories sell, not stories that crime statistics are down since that's not as interesting as "crime still happens, and we blame the current liberal/conservative moron in your city/county/state/country!"
Facebook and Twitter are not News outle
Re: (Score:1)
Kind of difficult to appear biased if your story has evidence and facts to back it up.
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of difficult to appear biased if your story has evidence and facts to back it up.
It's rather easy if you select the evidence and the facts that support your bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the audience doesn't even know what evidence or facts are. "My friend Susan said she saw someone vote twice!" is considered evidence by some people. Or numbers that are just made up are considered evidence ("200,000 bad signatures" despite there being fewer mail in ballots than that). Others just assume a story is true then try to figure out what sort of excuses can be made that it seems true ("the were smart enough to manipulate the presidential vote undetected, but so stupid that they forgot to do
Re: (Score:2)
And the audience doesn't even know what evidence or facts are. "My friend Susan said she saw someone vote twice!" is considered evidence by some people. Or numbers that are just made up are considered evidence ("200,000 bad signatures" despite there being fewer mail in ballots than that). Others just assume a story is true then try to figure out what sort of excuses can be made that it seems true ("the were smart enough to manipulate the presidential vote undetected, but so stupid that they forgot to do the same thing for down-ballot choices, it all makes sense if you do your own research and don't listen to lying media!")
I'd just like to take a moment to point out that Today in Slashdot includes a link to What do you believe even if you can't prove it? [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of difficult to appear biased if your story has evidence and facts to back it up.
That kind of perpetuates part of the myth, that bias and evidence/facts are inherently incompatible. They are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the myth. "MSM is unbiased" is the myth.
The only myth is that anyone claims MSM is supposedly unbiased outside of those trying to discredit it. All humans and organizations will have some bias. The degree of bias is what's important (making charts like this [adfontesmedia.com] useful).
If one coworker lies to you once a day (either intentional or by mistake) and another coworker lies to you a dozen times a day, it isn't a good idea to simply state all coworkers are liars so it doesn't matter which one you listen to. A better approach is to mostly give your more honest coworker the benefit of the doubt but still take their statements with a critical eye. And completely ignore the pathological liar.
Propagandists don't need to convince you they are correct. They mostly just need to convince you more reliable sources of information are unreliable. A very reliable indicator of a propagandist is any message which attempts to discredit main stream sources of information. Going after particilar positions and messages to point out inaccuracies is fine, but if anyone is broadly attacking main stream "anything" they are almost certainly a conman.
Re: (Score:2)
There's omission of inconvenient facts and removal of context in order to make other facts/evidence appear different than it actually is.
Re: Partisan News Feed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is definitely a such thing as a "lie by omission" by which you make only true statements but still are giving an incomplete and hence biased picture.
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:4, Informative)
AP news.
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:4, Funny)
The Guardian (UK)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the BBC. But for "facts" you gotta seek them out yourself, and that changes for each and every story. Sometimes you go to the CDC or Johns Hopkins for covid statistics, or to the Georgia secretary of state's office for statistics on voters, or to the Power Cable County dog catcher's web site for dog statistics, or...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What unbiased news source do you recommend so I can get just the facts and make up my own mind?
Refer to this [adfontesmedia.com]. AP Reuters and NPR are about as good as it gets, and you will be very well informed if the bulk of your news came from these two sources. News coming out of NBC, CBS, BBC, Bloomberg, The New York Times, Washington Post and WSJ (among others) would also give a balanced view of the news, with more bias depending on individual reporters or pundits but still well rounded.
Factual reporting overall leans slightly to the left, which isn't too surprising given the attack on facts the western world is
Re: (Score:2)
Well rather the idea that journalists are supposed to be unbiased is a blatant invented myth. The entire point of journalism is to influence readers/viewers.
Yes, and some people want to be entertained by journalists and have their fragile egos stroked and biases confirmed. But there are those of us who want a reporter instead, and still find great value in that.
And the sad reality is that when most people say "I want an unbiased news source" what they really mean is "I want a news source that presents the narrative I wish was true rather than what actually is true."
No, the sad reality is many seem to assume that. Not sure why, because it also assumes all of us have tons of time to waste shorting the facts from the bullshit. We don't, and don't like being forced to.
If I wanted to be "influenced" in the 21st Century, we have an entire fucking culture of idiot "in
Re:Partisan News Feed (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually no, that is not the point of journalism and serious reporters did try to be unbiased. The idea is to deliver unvarnish facts for interpretation by the listener. Of course everyone is actually biased but that just makes it that much more critical to actively attempt to account for your own bias. If you lean left you try to lean right to offset it and vice versa.
That is all gone now, CNN begs the question (makes a statement that assumes a fact not yet settled) in virtually every intentionally inflammatory word of almost every story these days. This is true of most of the 'mainstream' news right now, all are heavily establishment biased and a filter that locks to them alone is painting a very single note presentation of the news.
Re: Partisan News Feed (Score:1)
Fox news is main stream too. Infact try to find the whole recording and transcript of what trump said to Georgia on fox. Go ahead try to find it.
Cnn published not only the recording and transcript but highlighted all the behaviours. And marked up the illegal comments said by a President. Trump just told someone to commit treason. Where is that fact on fox?
Re: (Score:2)
"Fox news is main stream too. "
And? I don't recall saying otherwise.
"Trump just told someone to commit treason."
Actually, no, he didn't and that is not a fact. That is statements amount to treason is an opinion and is definitely an inflammatory one. No actual legal expert has even come up with a theory under which a President is committing treason by requesting investigation into alleged election fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Bias is a loaded term. “If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and find out which is true.” That's journalism. For inveterate liars, it feels like bias to have someone to go to the window and have someone fact check their claim that it's raining. One of the worst problems that reporting in the last 20 years has had was this absurd both-sides-ism, like both sides should be tr
Re: (Score:2)
But when they say "a tornado hit this town at 3:04am" it's generally true. No one makes that kind of shit up. Then you head to the editorial side where they say "the stupid DA needs to do something about tornados, enough is enough!"
Yes, CNN has some bias in most stories and Fox has tons of bias in most stories, add Newsmax has trainloads of dung that they turn into stories each and every story. In general, the mass market media is BETTER than the overtly biased sites that open advertise how biased they a
Re: (Score:2)
Overall I'm not in disagreement with you but you have an interesting idea of establishment. To me the establishment is represents an elite aristocratic class which includes the leadership of the two major parties. It is better represented by congress where there are no term limits, federal employees (the so called, deep state) who don't turn over politically and wield immense power.
Trump is anti-establishment in the sense that he isn't actually aligned to either party but rather determined you had to run un
Re: (Score:2)
I never bought into that deep state myth. Trump does, because he's trying to bypass the rules and the existing bureaucracy is there to enforce and implement the rules. He wants to be a monarch where he just waves his hands and stuff gets done, without anyone pointing out pesky laws or rules or guidelines, and certainly no lawyers who disagree with his lawyers. He also thinks anyone who blocks him is a traitor because he can't see the difference between himself and the country. Ie, the DMV in your state i
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't bias news. But Factual News.
We have a huge problems of "News" sources pushing out false unverified information.
I will use an older example.
Back under George W Bush.
One set of journalist were stating a new regulation gave tax breaks to Hummer Owner.
Another set of journalist were stating that a new regulation was to help Small to medium size businesses, and lower fuel costs.
Looking into it further. I found there was a law for business to get tax breaks on Trucks over a particular weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the history of newspaper publishing in America is one of partisan editorializing. Nothing new there. And many cities had dueling papers, though more had but one.
Nothing new here. Except for one thing... I understand Georgia had an ongoing election and campaigns, due to the Senate runoff election. But did I miss the part where this was turned off for the general election. but turned on for the runoff? My only question - why?
Re: (Score:1)
It got turned off for the general because they were under threat to have billions eviscerated from their valuation by section 230 changes if they did not.
This is not free people deciding to do the right thing. This is unfree people censoring in ways those with power desire, or those with power will hurt them.
"Coincidentally", much of the ban was against their political opponents directly.
Re: (Score:2)
You know there's a difference between presenting users with news from a mix of well known agences and feeding them bullshit from hit sites right?
Re: (Score:3)
There are many reasons why we should want "the news" to be factual and presented without bias, but here's just one... Suppose you are looking to make a decision with financial impact - a major
Re: (Score:2)
The gray line of opinion faking as news should be watched on all sides. Fox made a big market of it. The sad part about 2016 onward was the collapse of CNN into being the anti-Fox news.
I recall one precious moment when the cameras rejoined CNN after some presidential event, and within one minute, one of the CNN people "reported" that Trump "didn't wear his mask because he didn't want to look silly."
Re: (Score:2)
So, a news feed can't be partisan? Why not? I can't think of many examples of news that isn't pushing an agenda of one sort or another.
The existence of a sometimes fuzzy line does not mean meaningful categorization is impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
Because billionaires sell the most fake news.
Negative dynamic stability versus fair & balan (Score:2)
I always like to start at the beginning of these discussions even though the FPs are so often disappointing. [Note: That's "visible FP" to you AC trolls whom I don't normally see.] But I am so often disappointed, as in this case. Not blaming you [[Sir] Arthur, KBE], but that's because I'm assuming it's the time pressure to FP that causes most of them. If thoughtful discussions were the raison d'être of Slashdot, then a better FP system would rank high on the list of needed improvements. [Though I still
Re:Negative dynamic stability v fair & balance (Score:2)
Annoying bug there. Input title lost several characters. The input character limit was clear, but wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Partisan is not the opposite of "unbiased". Partisan means for the benefit of a political party. It's bad to get your news from someone whose primary goal is to encourage you to vote a specific way as opposed to inform you.
For instance, even if you think the NYT is biased (which I would disagree with), they are not partisan. They run op-eds by Republicans and Democrats and in general take steps to try to produce truthful copy. Rush Limbaugh is a partisan, because getting you to vote Republican (and get
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between a news site that's trying to accurately report the facts, and an explicitly partisan campaign site that's paying to have their content shown to users. And remember, this isn't about what news sources people choose to seek out. It's about what Facebook's algorithm decides to insert into your feed between your friend's birthday pictures and your grandmother's cupcake recipe.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree with this. Facebook is an advertising platform. Political advertising isn't illegal, so why clamp down on it during certain times? I suppose if they can target what is clear misinformation then that's good, but it's a hell of a job to try and do properly.
That's Awesome... (Score:1)
Truth in politics would be a grand thing ... (Score:2)
but would be really hard to legislate for as it is hard to define/decide what is the truth in all cases - a difference in the way that people view things means that different people can view the same facts/opinions are differently true/false. Because this can reasonably happen in some cases it is hard to draw a line as to how bad a whopper must be to define it as a lie ... so it is simpler to not do at all.
This results in some politicians using this to lie with impunity and confuse the heck out of a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
People like you are the problem.
Opinion has no truth value. Facts do.
I can make a factual statement that's false. That's called a lie, not an opinion. I can make a factual statement that's true. That's a fact. Not an opinion.
I can make an opinion statement, but it can never have the attributes "true" or "false". That would make it a factual statement, by definition. You may agree with my opinion statement or disagree, but neither can make an opinion into a fact.
For fucks sake, we did exercises in elementary
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the good old days of painting polilticians as honest is gone. Even then story of George Washington saying "I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down this cherry tree." was not true! Honest Able probably told some whoppers too. But at least back then there was a pretense that honesty was important. Today though, with a party controlled by evangelical Christians, honesty is no longer treated as a virtue and if you point out the truth you will be branded as a traitor by the exact same people who insist tha
Georgians? (Score:2)
As Georgians head to the polls to vote on their two U.S. Senators
I doubt most Georgians are eligible to vote for U.S. Senators...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like the dinguses who get all up in arms about calling US citizens "Americans". "But, but, but, what about South/Central America!".
Sorry, bozos, poll everyone in the world capable of answering and if you ask them to point to where Americans are from they will point to the US. Words have meanings based on how they are used by most people.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one other country in the world with the word "America" in its name.
Good enough for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Demonym, I cast thee out, the power or Christ compels you!
Wow, would you lose that bet (Score:2)
The country of Georgia has under 4 million people. The state of Georgia had over 5 million votes this past election (and wasn't at 100% turnout). Even if you discount the US Georgians under 18, and ignore the obvious context (the Georgians from the US State are voting for US Senators as has been in the news for 2 months), the majority of "Georgians", worldwide, can in fact vote for US Senators.
Facebook determining what partisan (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing on social media that should ever be trusted!
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong for Georgia? (Score:2)
I just looked for WrongForGeorgia.com and all that's left is a site which redirects to itself all the time, unless there's some Javascript there which reacts to my browser or something. Looking it up on a search engine and I found https://www.deadwrongforgeorgia.org/ [deadwrongforgeorgia.org] which seems to be propagating somewhat divergent views.
Re: (Score:2)
Different views? I didn't spend much time on your link but the giant pictures and headlines seem to all lean towards 1 view.
People Still Read Facebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy....
You obviously aren't on Twitter. It has FB beat by a long shot for scum and villainy...
Re: (Score:2)
Tens of millions of them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is the flocculating agent. It makes all the horrible people cluster together and float to the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube comments would like a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
What you see on Facebook is simply what's posted by your friends and organizations you choose to follow (plus some ads).
But thank you for informing us that your social circle is a wretched hive of scum and villainy...
surprise, the summary is wrong (Score:2)
GA voters will not "effectively" determine "partisan control of congress" unless they vote democrat.
Democrats control the house.
A D-win for the Senate in GA would give them control of the Senate and thus, congress.
An R-win for the Senate in GA would prevent partisan control of congress because then the Republicans would control the Senate, and Democrats the House.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is something we should hope for regardless of party.
Hell, I wish we had more than 2 parties to help further push debate and discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... it's almost like the results of Georgia would determine the status of partisan control of congress. Like the phrase you had a problem with.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension is fundamental; it's tragic that they aren't apparently teaching it these days.
Notice that the summary quote was "As Georgians head to the polls to vote on their two U.S. Senators -- and effectively, partisan control of Congress"...not "the status of" partisan control of congress.
"Determining partisan control", and "determining the status of partisan control" are 2 different things. The latter is your creative edit, not an exact quote, and that edit changes the meaning.
Like "turning t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're illiterate. "Determine" was used as a synonym for "decide" not "investigate" The vote today will decide which party has partisan control of the senate and the status of partisan control of the Congress as a whole. You illiterate fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you'd have to be a complete moron to argue the specific meaning of a word not actually used in the original quote, right?
Considering that I was the one that used 'determine', I'm pretty sure
a) I know what 'determine' means, and
b) the POINT of what I said was that there is a difference in meaning between "determining X" and "determining the status of X". The meaning of 'determine' in that example is really not relevant.
And hilariously I even gave you an additional simpler example which you appare
Re: (Score:2)
It could be argued the House is largely irrelevant, the only role they play is in being one step in the approval of new legislation. The Senate fills the same role but also gets to pass or block all kinds of other stuff like appointments of federal judges, presidential cabinet members, and heads of all sorts of government agencies. Without the cooperation of the Senate to some degree the House and even the President can be largely hamstrung.
A good example of which is when the R's controlled the Senate durin
Re: (Score:2)
It could be argued the House is largely irrelevant, the only role they play is in being one step in the approval of new legislation.
All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate cannot propose to spend money. That is a big one.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but as soon as the House passes a spending bill it goes to the Senate. And the Senate can then write up their own version by amending the shit out of it. Then the Senate and the House assign committees to try and work up a compromise that will pass in both the House and the Senate. Granted either side could stonewall the process, but that isn't like the Senate and approving appointees. The House has absolutely no say so in that process.
"Systemically Important" companies (Score:1, Troll)
After the last financial crises, a term "Systemically Important" was invented for financial companies. Those of them, who qualified, were saddled with significantly more regulations and limits to what they can do.
Maybe, it is time we expand this principle to other industries. For example, for all companies considered "systemically important" by some set of criteria, the following additional restrictions shall be implemented:
The feed I'd want (Score:1)
If I had any accounts, I would want to see the one where the con artist is possibly preparing to flee to Scotland [veteranstoday.com] on January 19th so he doesn't have to be an adult and congratulate Joe Biden on his win as well as a last ditch attempt to escape prosecution for his crimes.
However, with lockdown rules in place, that can't happen according the Scottish First Minister [unilad.co.uk].
‘Coming to play golf is not what I would consider to be an essential purpose,’ she said, during the Scottish coronavirus update earlier today, January 5.
‘We are not allowing people to come into Scotland without an essential purpose right now. And that would apply to him just as it applies to anybody else,’ she added.
Looks like the con artist will have to flee to another of his failed golf courses. I hear the one in Moscow is lovely this time of year.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the con artist will have to flee to another of his failed golf courses. I hear the one in Moscow is lovely this time of year.
The upside of this is that he'll be available to have a cup of tea with his boss.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not my President" was a theme for 4 years.
Biden himself said that Trump was an illegitimate president.
It's a shame that we spent 4 years destroying trust in the electorate system that it now hurts the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN non-partisan???ROFL (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that they are left leaning, but are hardly as partisan as their counterpart FOX
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/... [adfontesmedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And what's absolutely hilarious is that Fox news is now too far left for the right-wing nutters.
It's very much a case of Principal Skinner's "it's the children who are wrong" quote. These nutcases turn on literally everyone who isn't a complete far right nutbag. Everyone's a "RINO" if they in any way don't support Trump 100%. One day they'll love some guy, then two weeks later when he mildly disagrees with Trump he's "the swamp". They've even turned on Pence because he won't go along with their ridiculous
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a day later and now we know what they were leading up to.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet today = surveillance nightmare. (Score:1)
This is dead-seriously my experience with the modern Internet as of 2021:
Have you noticed that people who call Tor "TOR" are always morons? From Tor's official website: 'Tor is not spelled "TOR". Only the first letter is capitalized. In fact, we can usually spot people who haven't read any of our website (and have instead learned everything they know about Tor from news articles) by the fact that they spell it wrong.'
If you use Tor, just forget about doing anything whatsoever (outside of .onion sites). Eve
Follow the money (Score:1)
Facebook gave more than $400 million to democratic politicians in 2020. They are currently allowed to act as a free speech forum, when they clearly are not and are lining the pockets of those that will let them continue business as usual.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Facebook is a political advertising platform. (Score:1)
Simple as that. Sometimes it will pretend it isn't. In order to bring in higher prices for next years election of "whoever will pay them as much as possible" to advertise to the last few die hards and billions of bots.
It barely functions as a means to communicate with friends and hasn't worked well like that in the last five years. During those five years it's aims seems to be to fosters rifts and division. Ironically, It's only saving grace is that it isn't as bad as youtube, which will divert me into a vi
Re: (Score:1)