Goose wrote:

I hope that Zuckerberg tells the Senate to go pound sand.

 
I'll bet he just 'unfriends' them.

One should indeed have a healthy skepticism.
One should keep in mind that, thus far, the article reports assertions that are anonymous, and unconfirmed. Let's see how they hold up to fact checking.

tennyson wrote:

I asked, but did not hear anyone's comments - does ANYONE here use Facebooks trending section to get their updates of news (political or otherwise) ??? 

I really was not even aware of its presence exactly till it came up in this piece. It was just there. 

As I noted earlier, the posts by users most certainly were NOT edited for conservative or liberal biases as some posters really go overboard (I discussed this earlier about how to avoid seeing, etc). 

 

 
Nope. I consider FB to be social media, a forum for keeping in touch.
I never read nor take notice of the "trending" column.
I don't consider FB a news source, and have no expectation that they will balance content between various political philosophies.

Tempest in a teacup

Last edited by Goose (5/11/2016 8:42 am)

Very much worth a read from one of the best NYT tech writers......

<Ugh, I forgot you can copy and paste NYT articles anymore.>

It basically says that Facebook is the most influential source of news in the world today, that major media organizations like the Times are turning to Facebook to get its news articles out in the public, and that while Facebook doesn't appear to be doing anything unethical as it pertains to news aggregation (it's mostly done through computer algorithms) but that Facebook certainly has the power to influence the news.

I recommend reading it.  

"Facebook is the world’s most influential source of news.

That’s true according to every available measure of size — the billion-plus people who devour its News Feed every day, the cargo ships of profit it keeps raking in, and the tsunami of online traffic it sends to other news sites."



Meh,,,, I'm not buying it. 

I visit my FB page daily. I never read, much less "devoured" the news feed. Didn't really notice it until this kerfuffle. How did they look at traffic and distinguish between devouring the news feed, as opposed to just checking it  to see what your high school buddy you haven't seen in 25 years ate for dinner last night?

Sure, FB makes a profit. How do I know that it is because it is an influential news source, as a opposed to a medium for exchanging highly entertaining, yet vaguely disturbing cat videos. 

Last edited by Goose (5/12/2016 2:30 pm)