Jump to content

Facebook on PBS Frontline


Zen Traveler

Recommended Posts

And is censorship the demand, or just exposure of source?  One more thing to consider if you haven't.  Censorship can only occur (in the legal sense, right?) by a government action.  Private business can, and does every day, engage in "content discretion."  When one media outlet reports heavily on one thing, and others discard it or barely mention it while concentrating on something else, it is not censorship.  When Klipsch (a social media platform) forbids certain content, it is not engaging in censorship now is it?  So tell me more about who is demanding that the government censor free speech on media, or social media.  I haven't seen it from any part of the spectrum as it exists in this country.  If customers demand a certain level of quality in a product, it is not censorship, it is a customer/business relationship.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Isn't it interesting how FB has taken on an editorial role despite its prior mission to avoid engaging in editorialism for the sake of an open network to connect the world?

Yep. It's sort of like the gun debate. Once something so heinous happens with freedom of anything we need to re-evaluate. Imagine being known for being a big part/reason for the Rwanda  Genocide. 😒

Quote

 

  Here's the thing:  I think the "like" button is like a morphine pump.  People will get what they like - over and over - as much as they want.  They don't care about disclaimers from the MSM.

Sure. Now we have come full circle once again. If I point out your source is from a known conspiracy advocate that has been disproven many times and you keep using them then discussion has become moot. The more people who shout claims about the "MSM" being "Fake News," and I say point to the story they are talking about and they can't (happens to me regularly and it was something I pointed out in discussions in the BS Forum) then either we can reach agreement or they don't care to discuss the topic any longer.

 

That said, I was surprised and shocked how valuable the like button was and that their sales model was to capitalize on difference and cater to them--Facebook didn't realize fakery was going to be a key component and now they know and are trying to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldtimer said:

And is censorship the demand, or just exposure of source?  One more thing to consider if you haven't.  Censorship can only occur (in the legal sense, right?) by a government action.  Private business can, and does every day, engage in "content discretion."  When one media outlet reports heavily on one thing, and others discard it or barely mention it while concentrating on something else, it is not censorship.  When Klipsch (a social media platform) forbids certain content, it is not engaging in censorship now is it?  So tell me more about who is demanding that the government censor free speech on media, or social media.  I haven't seen it from any part of the spectrum as it exists in this country.  If customers demand a certain level of quality in a product, it is not censorship, it is a customer/business relationship.

This was your response to a part of my post I changed.  Now, you know why I changed it.  😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

That said, I was surprised and shocked how valuable the like button was and that their sales model was to capitalize on difference and cater to them--Facebook didn't realize fakery was going to be a key component and now they know and are trying to do something about it.

Yeah.  It's probably for the best.  I have to wonder, though, what their disclaimer looks like for Fox News, CNN and MSNBC?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Yeah.  It's probably for the best.  I have to wonder, though, what their disclaimer looks like for Fox News, CNN and MSNBC?  

Excellent question, Jeff! I mentioned earlier I have a friend in Ireland who still thinks Twitter is a News source. We haven't debated politics for quite some time, mainly because he used to send me FoxNews links during the Iraq War which ended up not being true and when I called him on it he said he couldn't hang with the discussion. From those times on (and as you should know given how many time we discussed them) I paid attention to FoxNews and countered their sources on a regular basis including last election (won't go there).

 

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I BEGGED him to give me his perspective on the POTUSA and it was like nothing had changed--He supports him whole-heartily and started giving me reasons that I knew weren't true. ACTUAL lies and I asked him to provide his sources--He sent me quite a few links, via Twitter links, and most were from the sources I mentioned (Breitbart and Infowars, along with some I'd never heard of but felt the stories were Fake.) When I told him Twitter is not a news organization and his sources have been provably unreliable, his comment was "Who am I to tell him what a news source is and where he should get his information."  His reaction was exactly like @Jeff Matthews  described ! 😳 What's more is,  I posted the disclaimers to the two conspiracy sites he referenced and have not heard back from him. 😑

 

You must have some canny insight because after finding those disclaimers decided to see what they said about FoxNews and lo and behold they seem to be like the others and classified as Mainstream Media, "MSM"! Yes with a Conservative slant especially if you only follow their punditry. That said, over the last year to try and start discussion I search FoxNews.com for factual information they had about stores and found they were there!  My major discovery was that they colored the Headlines and made click bait that also came with commentary, but for the most part the facts were there for those who don't get their news from pundits....To cut to the chase, last week I made a posting claiming I am now a fan of FoxNews Fan and asked the question, Do you  consider them, MSM? No reply from  conservatives, but liberal friends were shocked. I will let others research what they say about the other Media outlets but if we can't agree that FoxNews is legit on their factual stories, then propaganda will drive discussions and the chance for positive communication will be lost...

 

 Imo Jeff's premise of "Folks can buy into propaganda if they want," is valid. Otoh,  Facebook didn't engage on this adventure to promote "Fake News." as he originally suggested. What  happened in the past was not something they planned, but made EVERYONE more aware of. I agree with Jeff that Government doesn't need to be involved but pay attention when incitements are made and/or reports are written. {Steps of soapbox.}

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:35 PM, Jeff Matthews said:
On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:50 AM, Zen Traveler said:

Facebook actually bought information on it's users from data collectors and sold this information (as well as gave access) to third party advertisers  and data manipulators and this all adds to what came across people's feeds---This is where *stuff* gets sinister...

Targeted advertising.  You might not like what they are selling.  I might not like what they are selling.  But who are we to tell people they can't have their Alex Jones (or whatever floats their boats)?

To reiterate: What happened on Facebook was that their users information was being sold and NOT just what was gleaned on their site but also from the DATA COMPANIES who were supplying Facebook with actual spending and voting habits and what everyone was doing outside of their platform. I guarantee Facebook users didn't know what was coming across their NEWSFEED was being "Advertised" by Cambridge Analytica. 😳 They took for granted what they were receiving was going from news sources and not FakeNews marketers and bot factories--THAT is what makes the documentary so important, imo.

 

Btw, I thought the interview with the computer guy from the winning campaign was informative as well. I totally agree that guy was a genius, but he also exposed a difference between how he and the last winning candidate used the platform but I contend the difference was between circulating real news and information vs Fake News suing smoke and mirrors. That's my take from episode 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big supporter of PBS.

 

Personally, I do not facebook or any "social media" (except audio forums, of course ;) ) and believe it, twitter and the rest of "social media" (except audio forums, of course ;) ) have outpaced our brain's ability to assimilate information.

 

Whoever said "there is no solution" is correct.

 

Whoever said 'the industry will evolve and get better' (or words to that effect - home sick, not into finding the exact quote right now) is also correct.

 

I do not believe in government censorship.

 

I do believe in going after the originators of deliberate and demonstrably false assertions and accusations that are not clearly put forth as OPINION - but I also know that is probably not feasible.

 

The left believes that the right controls the media and the right believes the left controls the media. This makes it critical to monitor and actively choose your news sources - and to make sure that you are choosing from a wide variety of viewpoints.

 

This is what I do. Also still read newspapers. ;)

 

The Frontline FB series probably leans slightly left but has overall, to date, been fairly objective. What I am gleaning from this is that each of us must take responsibility for who we choose to use as information sources and the weight we give to each source.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Mods: this is the first thread of this type that I have posted on here. If this violates any TOS considerations, please delete and let me know so I do not repeat the error. Thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

Btw, I thought the interview with the computer guy from the winning campaign was informative as well. I totally agree that guy was a genius, but he also exposed a difference between how he and the last winning candidate used the platform but I contend the difference was between circulating real news and information vs Fake News suing smoke and mirrors. That's my take from episode 2.

I didn't see any connection made between the computer guy and any fake news.  There might have been, though.  My recollection was that fake news was coming from many different sources.  This does not necessarily mean it came from our "computer guy," too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

Mods: this is the first thread of this type that I have posted on here. If this violates any TOS considerations, please delete and let me know so I do not repeat the error. Thank you.

Shame on you!  We don't ask for permission around here.  It's the Mods vs. Us!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good points made here. 

 

One thing though, the news isn't just facts anymore.  News outlets have a plethora of writers and what they get away with their writing these days is nothing short of a soap opera. You have the facts and now you have the opinion.  Opinions involve agendas.  Now I have my Agenda before I received anything, here comes the facts, here comes my opinion (and emotion), not lets write and shape this piece to paint my corner pretty.  Gonna add some here, cut some there, now its perfect. 

We have news apps that all share their angles, I have never seen anything posted on FB that wasn't just the same, but usually worse. I think I have managed to block it all now though (for the most part.)  FB will never involve anything straight up or honest, but its a superb noodle washer for the sheep that follow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I didn't see any connection made between the computer guy and any fake news.  There might have been, though.  My recollection was that fake news was coming from many different sources.  This does not necessarily mean it came from our "computer guy," too.  

The guy I'm talking about was the guy interviewed who said "If I'm going to spend 100 Million Dollars on this platform I want a manual."  That dude was bad *** and credited to know more about Facebook than Facebook at the time! He has already been interviewed by government and may not be guilty of anything, along the lines  that spreading propaganda isn't a crime, where we agree...That said, they guy was a genius and knew/used ALL of the fake/mfg regardless if he knew where it came from--He was the guy who understood the Facebook's algorithms potential and used it--He knew that "Pope" story wasn't true but he darn knew where to send it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

The Frontline FB series probably leans slightly left but has overall, to date, been fairly objective.

I hate labeling it anything but a great fact-based Information vehicle who has access to key players in a non partisan way. That said, I have differed with some of the opinion offered in several shows and like they allow room for that. They always leave you with more to research.

3 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

 

What I am gleaning from this is that each of us must take responsibility for who we choose to use as information sources and the weight we give to each source.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Mods: this is the first thread of this type that I have posted on here. If this violates any TOS considerations, please delete and let me know so I do not repeat the error. Thank you.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the MODs will warn Jeff if he's getting too political--He has a sixth sense  for that kinda thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max2 said:

 

One thing though, the news isn't just facts anymore.  News outlets have a plethora of writers and what they get away with their writing these days is nothing short of a soap opera. You have the facts and now you have the opinion.  Opinions involve agendas. 

Good observations. One thing I noticed about opinion vs fact is that facts are easier to prove when a reporter puts their thoughts in writing and it goes through the editorial process. Actual news has facts substantiated by numbers, words, video or actions from the key players. I use as an example now FoxNews--Their pundits are highly opinionated as are their headlines, when you go to their website and search for facts I have been pleasantly surprised that they are there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't take it personally, like the douchebag we all know and see on TV everyday.  for example, today---question "You redirected funds from combatting home grown terrorism from far right wing hate groups"----answer: duhhh, Netanyahu likes me in Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldtimer said:

Don't take it personally, like the douchebag we all know and see on TV everyday.  for example, today---question "You redirected funds from combatting home grown terrorism from far right wing hate groups"----answer: duhhh, Netanyahu likes me in Israel.

 

I steer clear of all 24x7 news channels. Too much "real estate" for all of them to fill without a crapload of (mostly sensational and combative) editorial content being passed of as hard news.

 

I keep track of national politics via a variety of sources (including PBS and NPR ;) ) but pay much closer attention to local government - city council, county commission, state assembly and state senate - where I can hopefully make a difference.

 

This is another area where social media is dangerous. Everyone is a "journalist" now and is is all too easy for these folks to whip a small percentage of the populace into a frenzy thus impacting local politicians.

 

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...