I think that this Guardian piece has a very fair summary of what Facebook
needs to be doing. And that's probably hiring an editor to avoid these
kinds of thing in the future:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/10/facebook-news-media-editor-vietnam-photo-censorship
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Kevin M. wrote:
> I never said their choices for what is considered trending actually
> applied to the users who see them. I don't want 99% of what I see as
> trending on Facebook or Twitter, but I'm accustomed to that and generally
> ignore any content being spoo
BTW - out of curiosity, I went back and checked my FB News feed after
posting the above. One of the top trending stories was "Hillary's Health
Concerns Serious, Say Most Doctors Polled by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons". This is a fake survey published by a crackpot
group that
I never said their choices for what is considered trending actually applied
to the users who see them. I don't want 99% of what I see as trending on
Facebook or Twitter, but I'm accustomed to that and generally ignore any
content being spoonfed to me. But I'm a middle aged white guy with no
spouse,
All I can say Kevin is that what you are reporting has definitively not
been my experience recently. I am seeing a high fraction of Breitbart
articles and fake news stories, similar to the McCain piece I shared
earlier today. I have never seen anything like this ever showing up in my
actual FB feed
Facebook's trending topics are NOT universal. Just as Amazon's pricing
varies depending on your age, gender, location, and purchase/viewing
history, Facebook's trending topics vary based on who your friends are,
what you search for, what you click on, and your own level of interaction
with the webs
I have to think Adam is right here; we are not talking about gossip - there
was plenty of that on the FB trending feed even when they were using human
editors. What we are seeing now is real, moldy bull shit, that I just can't
believe the FB decision-makers really want to see on their front page.
Gawker and TMZ were, or are not aimed at everyone. Yes - they want to
maximise page views and did all they could to do so. But that was amongst
their target audience.
For starters both were aimed squarely at Americans, and Americans
interested in gossip of one sort or another. I'm not saying non-A
On Friday, September 9, 2016, PGage wrote:
>
> I understand that is what you are claiming; what I am having trouble
> believing is that it is actually true that the kinds of stories they are
> posting will actually get them more page clicks.
>
>
> Gawker was seen by millions. Time posts Kardashia
I understand that is what you are claiming; what I am having trouble
believing is that it is actually true that the kinds of stories they are
posting will actually get them more page clicks.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Kevin M. wrote:
>
> I'm making the claim that Facebook doesn't differen
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, PGage wrote:
> I agree with Adam in this, but aside from that, is Kevin making the claim
> that FB wants to list these sleazy stories in its trending feed? I was
> assuming FB was embarrassed about what was obviously a mistake and working
> on trying to fix it. Wh
I agree with Adam in this, but aside from that, is Kevin making the claim
that FB wants to list these sleazy stories in its trending feed? I was
assuming FB was embarrassed about what was obviously a mistake and working
on trying to fix it. Why do they think that pushing fake news stories
somehow
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Adam Bowie wrote:
>
>
> Just because a website doesn't consider itself part of the news-media, for
> better or for worse, it *is* a dissipater of news. They've actively done
> deals with news providers to get outlets to use Facebook, most recently
> encouraging th
FIrst to note is that Facebook has now backed down on the "napalm girl"
photo:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-reinstates-napalm-girl-photo
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Kevin M. wrote:
> Much like the late Gawker, Facebook's goal is to draw the masses to the
> webs
Much like the late Gawker, Facebook's goal is to draw the masses to the
website. The goal is not to provide or distribute information, merely to
share (and get users to share) content to keep people interested.
Also worth noting that, unlike Twitter, Facebook doesn't label paid posts
as ads in its
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Adam Bowie wrote:
> Basically FB has fired the team that used to put manually put that
> trending sidebar together. This followed that report that suggested the
> team were too "liberal" and weren't including right-leaning stories in the
> trending section.
>
> Ins
Basically FB has fired the team that used to put manually put that trending
sidebar together. This followed that report that suggested the team were
too "liberal" and weren't including right-leaning stories in the trending
section.
Instead, FB has gone for an algorithmic approach, but so far with
Something has been happening with the stories pushed on the home page of my
Facebook. This has never been a source of the most trusted news stories,
but at least in the past there was some semblance of newsiness to them. But
for the last few days (or maybe longer, I don't read this that often) the
18 matches
Mail list logo
