zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. mdifrg+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-09-24 16:24:10
Re: the comments about incendiary content and maximizing attention.

This is what every news outlet tries to do. The only difference is that FB is better at it. It reminds me of the controversy about targeting ads towards protected categories (age, gender). This is something all media buys do as well, based on location, event type, but FB just has a better way.

I'm not saying its right, or necessarily wrong, just that this seems to be more about them being good at something than it is about them operating in moral territory that is different than any other business.

replies(3): >>deathg+x >>hogFea+w3 >>anigbr+w4
2. deathg+x[view] [source] 2020-09-24 16:26:56
>>mdifrg+(OP)
It is new to run targeted ads at protected classes. And it is new moral territory.

Example: The government of Iran use pizza ads targeted towards gay people to track down their identities. Still the same as other media?

3. hogFea+w3[view] [source] 2020-09-24 16:38:48
>>mdifrg+(OP)
The guy is complaining about incendiary content whilst repeatedly comparing Facebook to "Big Tobacco"...I think there is a lot of bombastic nonsense being thrown about.

And I agree Facebook is not the first company in the world to maximise attention with this kind of content. Go back to when political pamphlets started appearing in the 16th century, it was mostly salacious bullshit about well-known public figures being possessed by the devil or drinking the blood of orphans.

I am not even sure what the problem is anymore, let alone what the solution is...but this is not going to stop with Facebook, this is just a reflection of human nature (and yes, everyone has complained about this kind of "content", it ignores the fact that most humans enjoy consuming it).

(I think the most problematic part of Facebook is just that so many people get their news from there and, like every human that has ever existed, they have been unable to deal with that responsibility in an even-handed way...I don't know though. They are basically a dead platform anyway, it is mainly used by old people to keep up to-date with their grandchildren afaik...I don't really know anyone who uses it, and I have never used it myself).

replies(1): >>anigbr+b6
4. anigbr+w4[view] [source] 2020-09-24 16:43:32
>>mdifrg+(OP)
Many news outlets try to do this, but not all of them. There are some that strive to be fair and prioritize informing rather than inflaming their audience. The problem is that there is more money in the latter and many investors are greedy.
replies(1): >>TeMPOr+DS
◧◩
5. anigbr+b6[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-09-24 16:50:44
>>hogFea+w3
They are basically a dead platform anyway, it is mainly used by old people to keep up to-date with their grandchildren afaik...I don't really know anyone who uses it, and I have never used it myself

This is terribly myopic; you don't have to like FB or want to use it to recognize its influence. Consider the possibility that you just haven't really wrapped your head around it yet. Also, I'm gonna guess you don't know a whole lot of older people, and may be falling into the cognitive trap of thinking your experience of social demographics is reflective of the population at large.

replies(1): >>hogFea+l9
◧◩◪
6. hogFea+l9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-09-24 17:07:38
>>anigbr+b6
Yep, all I mentioned is that I didn't use FB and you leapt on that instantly (mention that you don't use FB, and people will think they know everything about your life).

You're guess is incorrect (I love that you have considered all the things I don't know whilst jumping to random conclusions). When I said: I don't really know anyone who uses it, I meant I don't know anyone under the age of 35 who uses the platform with regularity (remember, I said that it was dead, not that no-one used it...they have 3bn MAU, people use it but my point is that people don't use FB in the way that is often assumed by politicians...who btw, mainly see FB as a way to target voters...the political use of FB peaked with Obama).

replies(1): >>anigbr+X9
◧◩◪◨
7. anigbr+X9[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-09-24 17:11:21
>>hogFea+l9
'Consider the possibility that...' and 'i'm gonna guess' is not thinking that i 'know everything about your life' or jumping to conclusions. Chill out and reread your comment in a while.
replies(1): >>hogFea+Q24
◧◩
8. TeMPOr+DS[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-09-24 21:07:50
>>anigbr+w4
> There are some that strive to be fair and prioritize informing rather than inflaming their audience.

Name three.

It's been a while since I saw one. Even BBC sometimes succumbs to clickbait, and the inverted pyramid is all but forgotten in the journalism world.

◧◩◪◨⬒
9. hogFea+Q24[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-09-26 01:56:35
>>anigbr+X9
Reread both mine and yours again. You are quoting sections that weren't said together. Tragic.
[go to top]