One of the reasons I remain on the fence about Facebook is the shoddiness of the reporting about them. Today in the New York Times, for example, the company is taken to task over their response to users who spread conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being stolen by Democrats.
But if you read the whole thing, there's almost no meat here. Facebook, it turns out, tried pretty hard to clamp down on this stuff but underestimated what it would take to stop it. Now, as it happens, I have some qualms over just how much Facebook should be expected to shut down harmful commentary, but put that aside. In this case, it's not really an issue. All we really have is a company facing a complex problem, trying to address it, and not entirely succeeding. By that measure, every company on earth is guilty.
(I'll grant that this doesn't come close to the horrible reporting over Instagram being bad for teen girls, but what could? By ordinary standards, it's an obvious attempt to denigrate Facebook even though the reporters don't really have the receipts to back it up.)
However, there was one part of the piece that I found amusing. One of Facebook's researchers set up a fake account in order to study polarization and made a "startling discovery":
The internal research, titled “Carol’s Journey to QAnon,” detailed how the Facebook account for an imaginary woman named Carol Smith had followed pages for Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting. Within days, Facebook had recommended pages and groups related to QAnon, the conspiracy theory that falsely claimed Mr. Trump was facing down a shadowy cabal of Democratic pedophiles.
In other words, the real villain isn't Facebook at all. It's Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting. Without them to kick things off, Facebook would probably be about 99% less offensive.
So why isn't anyone talking about splitting up Fox News, or writing tell-alls based on Rupert Murdoch's private emails? If you want to go after Facebook, go right ahead. But be aware that you're attacking a symptom of rage against liberals, not the underlying cause.
'The internal research, titled “Carol’s Journey to QAnon,” detailed how the Facebook account for an imaginary woman named Carol Smith had followed pages for Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting. Within days, Facebook had recommended pages and groups related to QAnon, the conspiracy theory that falsely claimed Mr. Trump was facing down a shadowy cabal of Democratic pedophiles.'
Why is Facebook "recommending" QAnon related groups/pages to anyone, for any reason??
p.s. I talk about the damaging impact of Fox and Sinclair's for-profit propaganda all the time... but of course, I matter not.
Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice go to Charlottesville.
I'd argue that they're part of a conservative positive feedback loop
https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
Which is why the stuff that's percolating up through the newer media has been driving Fox even more right than pre Trump just to keep their viewers from leaving to get purer hits of anger elsewhere.
Dan Bongino on there twice, lmao.
If you look further back you'll see that's not even a high count per week for him.
What's kind of interesting is it looks like there has been a little leftward movement in the list for the last couple of weeks. Kind of reminds me of the way the camps were cleaned up before the Red Cross visits during WW2.
And part of the Lefty feedback loop.
As well as the "disengaged twats who ignore rest of world to post idiotic memes" feedback loop.
There is nothing per se about them that has an party political angle, but the nature of their set-up tends to promote feedback loops. This may be fudnamentally unhealthy for society regardless of party political concerns.
You're right, "Engagement" works on everyone, and online and FB's own studies it has worked better than old media at it. But that's why I included the link, because if you go back through the year he's been collecting the 10 daily most shared links and most to all every day are conservative influenced.
I guess it's possible that FB is where libs mostly hate share articles, but likely like Twitter has found, algorithms overshare conservative links
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2021/rml-politicalcontent
In six out of seven countries — all but Germany — Tweets posted by accounts from the political right receive more algorithmic amplification than the political left when studied as a group.
My guess is because they hammer the conflict angle of "Engagement" more heavily.
Also, the Alternative 4 Deutschland are a reanimated Nazi Party.
Even Jack Dorsey isn't nihilist enough to elevate that.
I don't keep up with their politics much so was guessing it was their media laws more than corporate concerns.
"Neuroimaging evidence has corroborated the behavioral findings that retaliation is hedonically rewarding."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927037/
Trolling liberals is very rewarding; supplying the outrage that sets up the rewards is profitable.
"So why isn't anyone talking about splitting up Fox News, or writing tell-alls based on Rupert Murdoch's private emails?"
Silly questions. How would anyone split up Fox "news" and what difference would it make? Does Rupert Murdoch even use email?
The constant talk about Facebook is because it has become what TV used to be back when there were only three networks and one or two UFH stations. It's a major source of what is called news and it is the #1 place for sharing and talking about it with friends and "friends" and other like minded people.
Facebook is on the long list of things we'd all be better off without, but will not quit for any reason.
Also, Zuckerberg was much more favorable to El Jefe & Jarvanka than even the Murdochs were, & Zucks & his Incel Mafia worked hand in glove with 45's West Wing to make America Myanmar.
"So why isn't anyone talking about splitting up Fox News?"
Make this go viral and you won't have to:
https://unfoxmycablebox.com/
If you have cable, you're paying for Fox. If the network had to exist on the fees from people who actually watch it, they'd look like Sinclair.
Sinclair is the stealth Fox. They own a bunch of stations in the hinterland, out where nobody in the mediaplex is paying attention, and push must-run garbage.
https://www.mediamatters.org/search?search=sinclair
I think Kevin is missing the obvious point, which Linley highlights above: Facebook isn’t a passive bulletin board or an IM chat app used only by friends and families, but instead actively brings this garbage to peoples attention.
Sorry, that should have been “Loxley”. Autocorrect did me in
Yes, Facebook is not just a passive conduit for people to exchange information with each other, it in effect actively sells references to things that might be of interest to people. This should bring us back to Section 230 of the communication code, which is considered to exempt Facebook from libel suits. Newspapers, for example, are not exempt and are careful not to publish or promote anything which might be libelous (untrue). Section 230 was intended for internet service providers, which do not actively promote any particular content (or shouldn't), not things like Facebook. Removing the section 230 exemption would probably get some of the craziest things like QAnon out of Facebook, but not references to Fox or other broadcast sources, which are themselves not exempt.
Newspapers, for example, are not exempt and are careful not to publish or promote anything which might be libelous (untrue).
Not so. Newspapers are indeed exempt, just like Facebook is, when it comes to user-generated content. So, Washington Post and NY Times can't be held responsible for libelous comments on their user comment boards. Similarly, Facebook rightly can be sued for defamation when it comes to orginal media content it creates.
Removing the section 230 exemption would probably get some of the craziest things like QAnon out of Facebook,
Doing so would also negatively impact anti-MAGA people on Youtube, Twitter or Tiktok.
The status quo isn't perfect. But it's infinitely better than a change to a system whereby those who hold political power get to decide what citizens can and cannot say online.
Also, 230 simply provides a liability shield for the online platform in question. It doesn't mean individual posters can't be sued.
Kevin's right: Murdoch's the real problem.
Newspapers don't promote user-generated content. You have to seek it out.
Anything pushed by an algorithm that the users cannot alter, do not know how it functions, is fundamentally not merely passively making content available.
Exactly.
Everyone knows the letters to the editor are crank bullshit.
Newspapers don't promote user-generated content.
Fair point. Maybe that should be the 230 modification: liability shield holds only for non-promoted, non-algorithmically influenced user content.
Removing 230 would cause Kevin to shut down these comments instantly.
Removing 230 would cause Kevin to shut down these comments instantly
I've generally been extremely wary of messing with 230, but Crissa raises a good point. See my response (above).
I agree. It's the algorithm that's the issue. People like to talk about AI and machine learning, but humans set up these algorithms. Facebook knows what it's doing - and also removed what guardrails they put in place after the election.
And yes, I think Sinclair should be broken up. We put limits on how many local stations a broadcast network can own. It's time to do the same for local station aggregators, particularly when the direct the content of local news.
Apparently, you can change your feed.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-use-facebook-no-algorithm/
I've avoided Facebook and ignore LinkedIn and Twitter.
Unfortunately, the advertisements (paid or automated) still exist on the 'most recent' list as well.
I disagree with the idea that Facebook tried to stop this kind of stuff. They just made the appearance of trying. A lot of their business is driven by this kind of negative reinforcemnet of existing prejudices. I think Kevin underestimates the synergy between Fox News and Facebook. Remember Fox News is not watched by many people compared to how many use Facebook. Misinformation is generated by Fox and circulated and reinforced by Facebook. Facebook does this by knowing their members weaknesses and exploiting them.
You know what Fox News and Facebook have in common?
Old people.
You are just strengthening my suggestion of launching Soylent Green.
Yeah, the fact that they moved into other countries and then hired barely any staff that speaks those languages...
QAnon was the greatest hoax in modern politics. Partisan con job. Why Biden wasn't calling Trump and Flynn pedo's, I have no clue. Your a politician. It's your job to give speeches like a wrestler. Rally your supporters to question every moral question of your opponent. Turn the dialect on its head ala Bruno Bauer, the father of Christ myth.
It's not just shoddy reporting. You need to remember that Facebook and Google are the news media's top competitors for advertising dollars. Any article you read about content people see on Facebook, or breathless takes on privacy issues, should be filtered through the publication in question's undisclosed interest in muddying the reputations of their rivals.
Time, as they used to say, for a panel on blogger ethics.
Facebook is run by Republicans. Democrats should just say it and move on. Most of the 18-34 demo doesn't even use it.
Facebook is run by Republicans.
An actual fact from Shooter_2422. Quelled surprise!
Please don't feed the semiliterate anti-semitic troll.
Give it up Joel. You consistently accuse Republicans of "racism" yet don't look at their demographics . Learning Rush Limbaugh 's Jewish ancestry back in the 2000's really put the hook into me. It is definitely a brand to deceive.
I responded to the truth posted as much as the poster.
I see that Fox is starting a weather channel. I wonder if when the National Weather Service announces a major storm if Fox Weather will call it fake news and urge people to ignore any warnings. Then when homes are destroyed and people killed they will blame it on ANTIFA and Hollywood elites. Or perhaps that it was a false flag event and the so called victims were actually crisis actors mobilized to make Fox look bad.
It does make perfect sense. After all, why would anyone want to trust that "gummint weather"?
Just more window dressing to make them look "legitimate." Added benefit: keep their faithful from going to ABC, NBC, CBS for weather and inadvertently being exposed to real news.
It makes no sense to criticize Fox News and Sinclair but give Facebook a pass.
Once again, mega-kudos to Kevin for his unrelenting criticism of one of the most toxic political actors in America today.
Too bad the press looks the other way.
Mr. Drum feels sorry for Facebook. My god. They live streamed mass murder.
“The tech giant said there would be a "one-strike policy" banning those who violate new Facebook Live rules. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called the measures a "good first step". In March the gunman live-streamed the attacks in New Zealand, where 51 people died.”
One strike. Kill 51 people and it’s a strike! Banned from FB.
What is wrong with you, Mr. Drum?
You have qualms. You have no decency left.
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are struggling to halt the spread of horrific footage that appears to show a massacre at a mosque in New Zealand as it was taking place. Dozens of people were killed Friday in shootings at two mosques in the city of Christchurch. One of the shooters appears to have livestreamed the attack on Facebook (FB). The disturbing video, which has not been verified by CNN, ran for nearly 17 minutes and purportedly shows the gunman walking into a mosque and opening fire.
You have no decency left.
I guess he like watching horror. So look… I can still find that Facebook video online. Here you go Mr. drum. Be entertained. Indulge your qualms.
https://bestgore.fun/w/49ebb612-e70e-4581-942e-35c607dc6521
Like a lot of people I think FB's flagship product is pretty shitty. But what are you arguing for, that it should be banned? Or that people who don't share this view "lack decency?"
Kevin's marshalled pretty convincing evidence that Fox News much more than Facebook is the cause of the intensification of political anger in America. You're free to doubt his findings, but you'd be more convincing if you brought evidence instead of hysterics. And most online platforms are home to some pretty sick shit (Twitter, Youtube, TikTok, included). This is far more due to the nature of technology (cheap, ubiquitous video recording + cheap, ubiquitous broadband) than it is is due to the greed of any particular tech bro.
I’m arguing that decent people don’t defend evil. It’s quite simple. I’m not in favor of censorship. I’m in favor of decent people understanding that certain things are, in fact, indecent. These indecent things are legal in a free society but I am not required to pretend I like them.
I’m arguing that decent people don’t defend evil.
Pointing out what one perceives to be shoddy reporting isn't "defending evil." It's shining a light on, um, shoddy reporting.
Decent people also don't give traffic to those who defend evil. So what are you doing here?
Do you dispute that Facebook live-streamed mass murder? Or is it that you can’t bring yourself to admit that Facebook enabled it?
Obviously "Facebook" in the sense of a bunch of executives sitting in Menlo Park didn't stream a live murder. No.
Their controls failed to prevent a sick person(s) from doing so. As I indicated above, for a variety of reasons I believe their flagship product is mostly pretty terrible.
This is the kind of rationalization that I find objectionable. Unintended consequences are still consequences.
Drum writes, “One of the reasons I remain on the fence about Facebook is the shoddiness of the reporting about them.”
He’s on the fence because someone makes a poor argument but he ignores the fundamental fact that Facebook enabled this evil. It’s dishonest and, frankly, disgusting.
He’s on the fence because someone makes a poor argument
Kevin likes accuracy. His post quite correctly calls out mainstream media for lack of accuracy. The fact that the subject of the reporting is a crappy company, or one you and many people happen to hate, is neither here nor there.
“All we really have is a company facing a complex problem, trying to address it, and not entirely succeeding.”
Would you say that about a company selling cigarettes? Their product poses a serious health risk to its users. There are warning labels on the damn box. Shall we argue that’s sufficient? Or can we muster some small amount of decency and tell our loved ones they really should quit smoking?
I'm perfectly happy to entertain regulatory proposals wrt social media. Got any?
Nonetheless, Facebook's products are safely used by hundreds of millions of people. I occasionally use their Instagram service, for instance, and have suffered no ill effects. You can't say the same thing about tobacco. The latter is inherently dangerous.
There is no regulation possible. It’s a test of character and Mr. Drum failed.
Of course regulations are possible. They could be broken up (antitrust action). Section 230 could be changed (I'm leery of messing with it but it's not impossible to do so). Mental health warning disclosures could be required. More stringent protections of children could be imposed. And so on.
How does breaking up facebook or any other regulatory suggestion address the problem that it enabled mass murder? Any media based on user generated content will have the same problem. If you don't manage the content in a way which prevents all the stuff we don't like, it doesn't matter. Someone will always use it to spread misinformation, hatred, etc. That's the fundamental problem with social media. It has no editor. It is unlike, I think, any other media in human history. That's why it is so dangerous. And that's why decent people shouldn't use it no matter how innocuous it seems to them personally.
How does breaking up facebook or any other regulatory suggestion address the problem that it enabled mass murder?
You're not seriously contending it is social media that "enables" mass murder, are you?
Anyway, you're just wrong (and in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority) when you urge people not to use a technology that can be used for evil. Lots of normally good things can be used by evil people, sure. You're also engaging in an exercise in futility: we may find ways to better regulate social media, but it's not going away.
I think the argument is that Zucks, if we're going to let him be a multibillionaire on the strength of recreating HotOrNot-dot-com with an Ivy League patina, should have to show at least the charitable spirit of previous industry barons like Andrew Carnegie & John D. Rockefeller.
Right now, though, Zucks has made the case that he's not even as empathic as fellow Harvard alumnus Ted Kaczynski.
Many (I suspect most) of today's tycoons are vastly less concerned with the public good than Carnegie was. Zuck is hardly the only one. That's why we should tax the fuck of them.
No, if Facebook algorithms lead from Fox News to QAnon, that is the fault of Facebook, just as it would be if they led from - let me take someone distasteful - Ted Cruz to Holocaust denial, or from Matt Gaetz to pedophile postings, or from "religion" to Islamic State beheading videos.
Off topic with a covid update looking at covidactnow.
Yes, it was florida being state #2 getting to "yellow level" basically where cases less than 10 per 100000 weekly.
Looked like Louisiana was going to be the one for a while but they will probably be next.
In good news, all the southern states are still dropping fast. And no state anymore is clearly still going up - no state are cases increasing by more than could be reporting error.
In bad news, seems just about everywhere except the south, cases are not declining much and it just seems stalled out. In my state ca, the decline has clearly stalled although still going down slowly and we are getting passed daily by all the southern states going down.
This is concerning for two reasons. If weather related , it is only freaking October so what does December hold. And similar pattern, at a lower case level, to the uk with a delay.
Maybe the advent of booster shots and impending vaccine aporooval for over 5 , plus continuing new infections, will increase immunity enough to offset weather. I hope.
I hope for more dead unvaccinated republicans. I’m a terrible person though.
I agree then with the 2nd sentence.
I know… I can’t be bothered to care much about the suffering of willfully unvaccinated people. I’m all out of sympathy. There’s an old story which, I think, aptly describes their plight.
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help. Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned.
He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
I simply cannot be bothered to concern myself with the welfare of of such foolish people. So yeah… I’m a terrible person. It’s m going to own that. You should too.
I’m going to own that. And the unvaccinated idiots should own their fate too.
I hope for more dead unvaccinated republicans. I’m a terrible person though.
You're not so much a terrible person as a glibly stupid person.
Unvaccinated Republicans are more likely to transmit the disease than vaccinated Republicans. The former, in other words, add to the dangers we all face. Those unvaccinated Republicans likewise add to the death statistics, which quite understandably contribute to social stress, depression and anger, which affect the fortunes of Democrats, thereby making a return to GOP governance more likely. This dynamic also weakens the economy, which both negatively impacts general prosperity and (again) helps Republicans win elections. Finally, healthcare costs increase above what they would otherwise be—which we all pay for. (Excess deaths also weaken the liberal democratic model of governance in the eyes of billions of people, which is bad for America's competitive position vis-a-vis the autocratic, one-party model with which we're now competing).
It should be eminently feasible to lack personal feelings of sympathy for vaccine refuseniks while nonetheless realizing it is deeply irrational and nihilistic to hope for more deaths.
So on this point you suddenly see the risk and are willing to do… what, exactly? Interesting. Do you not see the connection? Shall we be on the fence about the unvaccinated because they are treated unfairly by shoddy reporting?
Huh? It's been obvious for many months now that covid19 presents significant risks to all of us. I want the media to report the risks of remaining unvaccinated accurately. For the most part they're doing that. The principle exception is Fox News. Kevin's been warning about the nefarious influence of this organization for a long time now. Given the existence of the first amendment (and the right wing majority on the Supreme Court) there's not much the administration can do on this front. Still, early indications suggest mandates are doing considerable good, so there's that. (And in any event what do you care either way? You welcome the extra deaths. Right?)
I hope it's just a hiccup. Some states have just cleared up the Columbus Day holiday bumps. For the larger cold weather states: looks like numbers are dropping in PA now, and NY is on the edge of a drop off. IL--hard to say. OH falling from some pretty high highs, as is MI now too. And NJ is like CA. Cases still falling in southern states, hospitalizations and deaths still high, though are dropping too.
Seven day US death average is down about 31% since the late September peak. I think 6-7 days ago that number might have been more like 34% (if memory serves). So we have seen, I think, a teensy bit of backsliding on the reduction we had been experiencing over the last month. I expect part of what we may be experiencing is the impact of late September/early October's significantly more crowded hospitals (deaths are a lagging statistic) combined with the full effects of cooler weather (more indoor crowding) and the return to school.
If I'm right the USA's covid death statistics should resume improving more briskly in the days ahead (and we should also get some help on that front via the rollout of boosters).
C'mon now. They disbanded their Civic Integrity team -- they didn't have to do that. They can block QAnon content directly, by filtering combinations of keywords to stop traffic, rather than filter keywords to direct traffic. They could downgrade or block altogether low quality "news" sources. Do companies have difficulty tracking violations of their own ToS? Sure. But in the case of Facebook, it's frequently a matter of placing profit above adjusting algorithms and filters to stop destructive content from spreading.
The broader question you need to answer: Is it okay for Zuck's Facebook to become a Metaverse?
Zuck's version of a Metaverse means including all of the deplorables and letting them exist within their own Subverse of the Metaverse, full of subversives. In his idealized world, speech is completely unregulated but also 100% exists w/in Facebook -- the Metaverse.
You okay with that?
👍🏼
Facebook is the Typhoid Mary of extreme right propaganda.
More like Trump Jr.
We'll know Trump has been thrown overboard & won't be able to win a 2024 GQP primary when Peter Thiel puts his leftover money -- after bankrolling J.D. Antivaxxx for Senate -- behind Zuckerberg for President.
& the Fauxgressive Left were afraid of a Billionaire Insurgent Candidacy by Howard Schultz stealing another White House term from Bernie. Zucks will even get the youth vote that Schultz wouldn't have.
Do you smoke crack all the time or just before posting here?
Yes.
In a world of their own creation, others not privy to all the foundational axioms of existence of that world somehow wrested control from the Creators of that world. Sounds legit.
I an picturing the Antisocial Network episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
That's it! The Gang tries to take over the internet but wind up giving it to the McPoyle brothers.
In the land of the blind, the One-eyed Man is King.
The captain is a one-armed dwarf, he's throwing dice along the wharf...
Frank Reynolds's has been known to ally with the Mc Poyles.
"it's an obvious attempt to denigrate Facebook even though the reporters don't really have the receipts to back it up."
Of course it is and it doesn't matter they can't do it in good faith.
Kevin - You must know already that journalists absolutely hate and loathe FB. It destroys their newspapers, their careers, their world. They hate it like luddites hated the automated textile machines. i.e. for good reasons as far as their narrow interests are concerned.
We must oppose the journalists. Here, they are clearly trying to put their hands on the scale to preserve their little oligopsony.
So, Facebook is a big improvement over the oligopsony? (hey, great SAT word, BTW!)
The only truth Sarah Palin ever told was outing the corporate press as the lamestream media. But she went back to lying when she said the lamestream were against her & her RILMURICAN allies.
We should know, after decades of Ron "GOOD NEWS for JOHN MC CAIN" Fournier, Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman, David Broder, David Brooks, Matt Cooper, Judy Miller, Annie Linskey, Van Jones, etc., that the dead fish reanimators in the political press are hardwired for the GQP.
Does Kevin own stock in Facebook?
Very good odds on that.
Let's take a few seconds for Kevin's concerns about free speech: I believe we ought to think more carefully about free speech. There has been incredible sloppiness about the concept (SCOTUS declaring that political money and free speech are the same thing is a particularly egregious example).
Here is where the algorithm comes in: It segregates the on line population into camps and groups them by interest. This is certainly wonderful for stamp collectors, classical music aficionados, model railroad enthusiasts and other harmless hobbyists. But it is terrible for political speech: Everybody only hears the speech they agree with. It creates "ideological concentration camps" or brain wash centers if you prefer. Everybody is walled off from any counter arguments. I argue that this is in itself a suppression of free speech*; what is speech worth if nobody can hear it except for those who agree?
IMHO everyone has a right to free speech but in an ideal world nobody should have a right to a megaphone. In the real word it is impossible to "confiscate" all those megaphones but we should be careful not to create additional ones by algorithms and SCOTUS cases. The algorithm could be made illegal and no free speech right would have been affected in any way.
"Facebook has a difficult problem and has been unable to solve it" is a lame excuse if the problem in question is the very business model of the company and not solving it is the way to great profits. If the algorithm favored the political left rather than the reactionary right, creating a real risk to capitalism as we know it: Do you really think Mr. Zuckerberg would be unable to fix this?
I agree that FOX news is a problem (there are people in the media who care, e.g. Brian Steltser) and SInclair is an even bigger problem but the facebook problem (or rather social media problem) is bigger than that and different in kind.
* The "money equals free speech" SCOTUS doctrine has a similar flaw. It allows people with money to outshout people with no money and in effect suppresses the free speech rights of the majority, exacerbating a problem that was difficult even before SCOTUS came along and made it worse.
At various points in time you have called for ostracism of anyone connected to Fox and boycotting their advertisers. Do you have a say in the presence of the share via Facebook button which appears with each of your posts?
In a real timeline, & not the simulation we have been living since the 2014 plague of Ebola-beset Mexican toddlers in ISIS-crafted suicidevests, facebook would have become passe at about the same time in its lifespan as MakeOutClub, Friendster, & MySpace did in theirs.
Zucks's persistence of flimflammery is evidence of necromancy.
"So why isn't anyone talking about splitting up Fox News, or writing tell-alls based on Rupert Murdoch's private emails? If you want to go after Facebook, go right ahead. But be aware that you're attacking a symptom of rage against liberals, not the underlying cause."
Amen brother. In fact Rupe's emails would make fascinating reading presuming he knows what email is.
FB is 100% what’s responsible for the breakdown in our politics.
Trump didn’t have traction on Fox until well after there was no other choice. FB is the platform he used.
It needs to be taken out back and shot, nobody will miss it except trump.
I would be happy with letting his ex-girlfriend chop off his then watch him bleed out from his mutilated dangler.
Americans are lazy and cheap
Used to be you would subscribe to a paper. If you wanted a different view point you'd have to BUY another paper. Very few of us did that.
Then along came TV and particularly cable TV. You got several news stations "bundled". FOX included. FOX saw an opportunity to garner a bigger share of viewers and found the formula for doing it. Blonde, shapely women in pastel colors, heavily made up always in skirts. The news had a slight "salacious" flair to it and men in particular ate it up.
Newspapers started to die off
Then along came social media.
Talk about playing up to American laziness !!! Now not only could you read news that was slightly salacious you could read article that were outright false.
On TOP OF THAT you had these algorithms that remembered what you read and gave you advertising for similar websites based upon your history.
The rest as they say is history
If you LIKED sensational news, and salacious news and news tinged with sexuality then you got inundated with it.
We are reaping what we have sewn and FB is reaping the financial rewards for out intellectual laziness.
Make FB a pay site and what happens? Yup. Zuck goes belly up