Misses the point entirely. Facebook already incentivized this. It has a controlling algorithm. It's already not neutral.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
fake news can be a problem and also there can be plenty of reasons we shouldn't want them deciding what's real news and what's fake
6 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
That is not the question. They are already deciding what to incentive, what to hide, and what to make financially lucrative.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I would prefer they didn't expand that power. What you're saying is "it's not about censorship, it's about controlling what ppl see"
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @trevortimm
It's about incentivizing, yes. Not using the power they already have to fan worst flames in society isn't expanding their power.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @trevortimm
"Censorship" isn't remotely related to this discussion.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
sure it is. no one has agreed on definition of "fake." Many ppl's lists contain partisan, advocacy, and misleading sites--not fake.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
I don't think lists are the way to go. I'm wary of them. Though, if you cannot agree that there is no "Denver Guardian" or that+
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
glad we agree a lot of people have different definitions of "fake" and that would be problematic!
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
Actually, I think there is a lot of common ground on "fake"—you have no society without it—I just don't think lists will work.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Facebook does not have to let "Denver Guardian" defraud its users, while making a lot of money. Let them publish, that's not it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.