"Yes, There's Lots Of Fake News On Facebook, But Is It Really Changing Anyone's Mind?"
I agree with you, Masnick, that it is not "changing" people's minds from L to R or R to L. It's not "changing" their minds in the sense that they're not going to vote differently after reading their Facebook-fed news.
But it IS changing people's minds in another important way. It is cementing their minds, and further locking in their chosen narrative. That is a change in the mind. It makes it harder to bring people back to a shared set of facts...facts that more or less represent reality.
(Yeah, reality is hard to define, and always subject to some bias. That's why I say "more or less" represent reality.)
Look, we already have confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance in our amazing, faulty, monkey brains. This kind of news filtering just worsens those already big problems. This takes our human blind spots and wraps them around us 360 degrees.
This isn't new. This exact negative outcome was predicted when the "personalization" of search and news really started taking off in 2010. Tim Berners Lee wrote an article about the "Hotel California effect" for the Guardian, and Eli Pariser published his book "Filter Bubble". They predicted it would reduce the quality of critical thinking, and they were right.
I agree with you that just "blaming Facebook" for the election is a bit of a stretch, but you're wrong to act like it's not an important part of what needs to be fixed...somehow.
What's the fix? I dunno so far. But I think we should "nerd harder". This problem is not intractable like "encryption with backdoors". Maybe we also should "journalism harder", "ethics harder", and "policy harder".
The impact Social Networks have on bubble thinking can be reduced, and that's a worthy objective. As long as we share on planet, it's better if we share one version (more or less) of reality.
Re: Re: Re: "This isn't a post to mock Ben...as he mocked us."
Coyne, you're right, if said in English, which this is, since the "hoisted..." quote is not part of the English lexicon. Petard is also now a fully English word, pronounced in a way that rhymes with...um...retard.
Art G's point (irrelevant in this case) is that in French pétard has a silent "d" at the end.
The benefits of trade are seldom discussed, and probably not at all in this political campaign, because they're like a third rail. That's wrong, and will result in the wrong policy.
The negatives of trade are well-known. Some will lose jobs to people abroad willing to work for less. That's a real cost, and any person who loses such a job disproportionately pays the cost of trade.
But the benefits are bigger, and accrue to everyone who buys stuff at lower prices. Since the rich buy more, one could argue that the benefits accrue to them, but the fact is, cheaper goods enable the middle class and poor to buy some amazing products at some very low prices -- products that they might not be able to afford without trade.
Trade also brings varieties and diversity of products, which is an arguable benefit to all.
Whenever somebody says "I am against free trade", it should be a given that they are also saying "and I think we should pay higher prices for most things as a cost of stopping trade." But Trump, and many others simply don't understand that the implicit second part MUST travel with the first.
Economists, who usually disagree, are almost unanimous (87%) in saying "free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society*".
The question, therefore, should not be whether we support free trade or not, but rather: how do we ensure a more equitable sharing of the gains from free trade?
Note: I'm not talking about the TPP, which is less about free trade, and more about corporate greed and control.
Yeah, this is stupid of the CBC. Basically, the app is just delivering them listeners, delivering them increased influence, community, and ad opportunity. Should CBC not pay the app for that instead of vice-versa? Meh, no, should be deal-free and just how it goes.
Cable Industry But the precendent is strong. The Cable industry has been paying broadcasters for decades to extend their reach and bring them more viewers. I've never understood why cable companies (and thus their customers) should pay a broadcaster to pick up and repeat their free-to-air signal, but there it is.
"How does this make any sense at all? Now, there's something to be said for sometimes having an outsider's view on things, and no one's arguing that he needs to come from the internet industry or anything like that."
So Mike is specifically, and carefully, NOT taking a rigid "principled stand on that particular principle".
Masnick makes it clear the problem is NOT that Oetti is not from the industry, but rather Oetti is bad because:
"But Oettinger not only seems to not understand and not care...also seems to have no problem playing political favoritism with old legacy industries."
You have criticized something in the article that is specifically mentioned as NOT being the argument of the article.
Anytime we pass a law, or make a contract assuming good faith, one side will try to abuse it. Think of:
- this story above - copyright law - tax law - gov't power to snoop
The reason is that is is a power/effort mismatch. On one side you'll have the mass of the population with very limited information and limited incentives to act. The majority will just coast along with the rules in good faith, as expected. On the other side, you have an organized, financially motivated, highly informed agency that will hire teams of lawyers and technologists to spend 50 hours a week to try to skirt around the rules.
Any rules or deals that are made in "good faith" will be like a cheap bicycle lock. It'll keep the honest ones honest, but won't last long against the motivated baddies.
What concerns me is not that a journalist might be sympathetic with one side or the other:
"because Goodman's coverage was sympathetic to the protesters, it was fine to consider her a protester too. "
...but rather that our government and law enforcement, in the form of Ladd Erickson and the police, would take one side or the other.
Her job is to report the situation to the public, which she is clearly doing, whether biased or not. Law enforcement's job should be to keep the peace as the protesters demonstrate, and make sure innocent citizens and journalists remains safe, even if the protesters or pipeline security detail break laws.
"a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta."
Stop. We're already waaaay beyond the comprehension level of the electorate. Especially those that need to understand this story. Sad.