Simple, people share news articles to Facebook. WHAT you see based on your friends helps explain some of the lack of coherence in understanding out there. Check out this bit on red vs blue feeds on Facebook:
Facebook has to deal with people who try to post child porn, or something that could be seen as child porn. That well known shot from Vietnam is both history AND fits the definition of child porn. Given that Facebook is the largest photo aggregator site with 300 million photos per day - they need an automated way to control things. Mistakes will still happen. The complaints about this are just the type of BS freak out session that Facebook seems to help spread - so I guess they are being bitten by their own success.
Facebook has filed 16 patents already in September. If anyone thinks that they are just a public bulletin board, they are missing the point. That is like saying that Google is just a search engine.
A monopoly on what? Tell me how Facebook is exhibiting monopolistic powers that hurt the consumer? Their platform is free to use, the barriers to entry are low, and they have several possible competitors such as Google + (which failed), the second coming of MySpace (hah!), messaging apps like Snapchat, etc.
I know FB distributes all the news that’s fit to post. What I miss is the idea that news needs to come from a valid, trustworthy source, and that a vast amount of what passes for “news” that reaches FB uses in their insulated echo chambers comes from sites and aggregators so obscure they’re lucky to have an IP address. Rivers of clickbait and wildly distorted shit designed to drive up traffic… on Facebook.
And you’re being purposely obtuse. Who owns and controls Facebook is 100% the issue. It doesn’t matter what the controversy is, FB decides what it allows and what it doesn’t. FB usually doesn’t interfere with user posts, but it can and will at times.
If the newspaper editor wants to make every page of his newspaper that Vietnam photo, he can do that. But he can’t impose his will on another organization that he doesn’t control.
A stranglehold on public discourse as tight as any old one-newspaper town. If that doesn’t bother you, you obviously never lived in a one-newspaper town or anything like it.
The clickbait is to get you to click on the FB post and go to the aggregator site. Facebook does not own Buzzfeed, but Buzzfeed certainly loves the Facebook traffic. According to various sources, 40% of publisher traffic today comes from Facebook.
Now, does that mean the New York Times gets shared and depends on traffic as much as some random bullshit anti-vax, right wing conspiracy page, or a left wing dumbass sites? Yep. But those are also easy to block. I hit the drop down to “never seen shares from this site” and it cleaned up my feed pretty fast. Now I mainly see mainstream news, specialty news (e.g. Techcrunch), and friends’ bits and pieces.
I have lived in one-paper towns. Then along comes this thing called the internet, and all of sudden I could get my news from multiple sources very easily.
Hell, through Facebook alone today I have seen news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC and Techcrunch. Facebook does not stop people from sharing, and they have DE-emphasized the news feed from non-friends.
The biggest problem that Facebook causes is that it makes it easier for people to only listen to their network - but that has ALWAYS been a problem in our society.
My impression is that you’re of an age to understand what I’m saying. Maybe you’ve just fooled me.
Do you think there are 1000 continual users here? More like 2-300? So yes, it’s public discourse, and it does seem to have a strong hold on Google searches* but it’s not a day’s posting of Pence videos on FB.
Pretty much the same for the other social media. FB is the only one that really comes close to “discourse” as opposed to “continual mass public brain-vomiting.” My little town, for example, doesn’t use Snapchat or Reddit for information disbursal, but it and many in the same situation (left high and dry by traditional media) use a Facebook group for the purpose. No real choice if it wants to reach most residents here; it’s the only thing like a common channel.
But then, I get that people who never in their lives read a newspaper for information would get confused about how control of information works. Since you can click on fifty “communication” platforms, there must be endless choice. Got it.
that is, when WE search for things SDMB stuff comes up a lot. Couldn’t be any kind of echo, no, not at all.
I’m trying to figure out what Amateur Barbarian is going on about.
At the start of this thread he says that Facebook is run by idiots and for only idiots.
Then he complains that Facebook has too much power.
It just might be possible that Amateur Barbarian may be the only non-idiot left in this universe.
I understand exactly what you’re saying. That doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong. Did you honestly think I meant that the SDMB was the only other form of public discourse besides FB? Is that why you didn’t copy the second part of my post, where I explicitly listed 2 of the larger FB competitors?
In this case, it is claimed by the editor of the newspaper and the author that originally got censored that FB also deleted posts that discussed the practice of removing those images. I don’t know if that is automatically done, or how that would work even.
It’s a little strange to me that FB does not differentiate between posts from actual news organisations and those from the average moron - I would think it would have been possible to apply different filters depending on the source.
No, I specifically noted that there are dozens of other chat platforms. Most have a user base that makes FB’s look like IAS members. Yes, it’s discourse. Yes, it’s public. Yes, they’re all scrambling for the same space, which is why they keep changing their feature sets to resemble each others’.
But if the argument is that FB is *not *the 500-pound gorilla, the go-to for probably the widest demographic base on the net, the assumed “community discourse” platform for most people these days (who aren’t 16 and primarily communicate through selfies), then this is all pretty irrelevant. That, or the argument is that MySpace and Facebook are equivalents in every way, which is too absurdist to even discuss.
Re-read the article. Facebook deleted posts that had the picture in question. They did NOT delete posts about the issue - they deleted posts with a picture that, as they put it
Hm, I was thinking about this quote from the editor:
*“Finally you even censor criticism against and a discussion about the decision — and you punish the person who dares to voice criticism.”
*
But, yeah - I haven’t seen the posts, so I don’t know if they included the picture again and thus got deleted by the filters.