- Local time
- Yesterday, 23:30
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 44,831
They should be forced to inform people that THEY manipulate what everyone sees. Technical people have a basic understanding that this is what happens and I've tried to explain it to non-technical people (most of the world) but they don't want to hear what I'm telling them because they would have to admit that they were duped. No one wants to feel they were duped. So, the confession needs to be prominent and frequent. Maybe, the first search you do each week comes with a disclosure that reminds you that they are hiding some content and promoting other content. Then how they actually do the manipulation should be described at a high level on their website. The part about how they decide what to promote and demote is very important because THEY are deciding what is truth and what is not and who said they could do that?
Breaking these companies up doesn't solve any problem. It just creates stronger bifurcation of political opinion. That will absolutely lead to a civil war.
A better solution would have to be allowing people to consciously create their own filters. At least then they know that it is themself who is choosing to not see alternative views. And maybe some things shouldn't be filterable, meaning they show up in your feed no matter what. You don't ever have to read them but you will still see the headlines.
Media is always biased to some degree. It starts with individual editors deciding what is and what is not "news".
One big problem we have today is that "reporters" have gotten the idea that we actually care about their opinion. If I want someone's opinion, I will move to the Opinion Page or turn on a talking head. When I read news, I want to know Who, What, Where, and When. Later on we may be interested in why and how but we NEVER care what the author thinks about the event or the participants.
A more insidious problem is that the "reporter", when showing his bias, will omit certain facts of the case if they don't support the opinion he wants you to have. You can overcome this to some degree if you read the same story on different media sites. When Trump was President, I always listened to his official speeches. Then I turned to Rachael Maddow for opinion. I was always positive that we hadn't been listening to the same speech because instead of reporting what the President actually said, she would report what he "really meant". Apparently, Trump speaks in a code known only to Maddow and she translated for us.
Breaking these companies up doesn't solve any problem. It just creates stronger bifurcation of political opinion. That will absolutely lead to a civil war.
A better solution would have to be allowing people to consciously create their own filters. At least then they know that it is themself who is choosing to not see alternative views. And maybe some things shouldn't be filterable, meaning they show up in your feed no matter what. You don't ever have to read them but you will still see the headlines.
Media is always biased to some degree. It starts with individual editors deciding what is and what is not "news".
One big problem we have today is that "reporters" have gotten the idea that we actually care about their opinion. If I want someone's opinion, I will move to the Opinion Page or turn on a talking head. When I read news, I want to know Who, What, Where, and When. Later on we may be interested in why and how but we NEVER care what the author thinks about the event or the participants.
A more insidious problem is that the "reporter", when showing his bias, will omit certain facts of the case if they don't support the opinion he wants you to have. You can overcome this to some degree if you read the same story on different media sites. When Trump was President, I always listened to his official speeches. Then I turned to Rachael Maddow for opinion. I was always positive that we hadn't been listening to the same speech because instead of reporting what the President actually said, she would report what he "really meant". Apparently, Trump speaks in a code known only to Maddow and she translated for us.
