|
Fidel Castronaut posted:Sure, there's more of a monetary incentive but it still indicates that an internet that used to be just a free-for-all is no longer that. And there are economic pressures for tamping down on some of it. 4chan is unprofitable because no credible company wants to advertise with them. Reddit has very slowly been trying to make itself appear more respectable to investors by banning r/jailbait, then r/fatpeoplehate, and probably r/The_Donald eventually. Those sites are major vectors for the spread of unmitigated bullshit "journalism." I think you'll find that the market incredibly fickle when it comes to the concept of "morals." Fake news has already proven to be far more profitable than actual journalism and the only reason a company would decide not to publish a story is if it was off brand for the publication. Those sites are more likely going to be the basis for further market research to try to reach more alt-right individuals. Corporations don't seek to solve these sort of issues, they only monetize them.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Fake news is basically being created by teenagers in foreign countries to spam through Facebook so they can get the revenue from clickthroughs from Google. Getting 60 grand a year for posting poo poo to Facebook goes a long way in Macedonia. also that he did that because Peter "literal vampire" Thiel threw a fit. I'm starting to think that fake news is going to be an issue as long as: 1). Americans become better educated about good sources, what constitutes good news, etc. 2). That there needs to be a stronger outlet for Journalism as public good than NPR, rather than our immensely provit-driven one. Both of which are pretty much loving impossible, so I hope you all goddamn love every election having some kind of 4chan/reddit created "does the Democrats candidate hide kids to gently caress in the basement of this petshop/hardware store/ bakery? look at the clues in this email!" because this nation is too loving dumb to see that it's bullshit. Reagan's legacy delenda est
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
well, I woke up, so let's explore a weird facet of when AOL / THE HUFFINGTON POST tries to go local and fucks up royally! It's PATCH MEDIA! I'm a little lazy, so let's take a look at this part of the Wikipedia entry about it: "Patch was founded by Tim Armstrong, Warren Webster and Jon Brod in 2007 after Armstrong said he found a dearth of online information on his hometown of Riverside, Connecticut.[7] The company was then acquired by AOL in 2009 shortly after Armstrong became AOL's CEO. Armstrong told AOL staffers that he recused himself from negotiations to acquire the company and did not directly profit from his seed investment. He instead asked that his seed money be returned to him in the form of AOL stock when it split from Time Warner." Not so promising, especially when he asked for AOL stock, is it? Now, the idea of Patch Media is that there's a SINGLE editor/reporter/writer for each town covered. Choose the major city of your choice. Name a suburb. One person is tasked to do the leg work for every single thing in that suburb, whether 5,000 or 100,000 strong and write every story for it each day. Populate with police blotters and user-submitted content for whatever the local high schools or churches are doing. Sprinkle with AOL-provided content. Get paid $12.50/hr for your efforts. Repeat. It might sound crazy, but they haven't been doing well with this model. Jim Romenesko really doesn't like them. Ex-Patch people don't like that Romenesko doesn't like Patch! (You'll have to dive into the Romenesk-hole to find more stories, but this guy really loathes the whole concept as described above.) but hey, people really want to write, so who cares if the content dives as a result? edit: effort posting is really tough these days, jeez louise
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
blamegame posted:the right was like 'we're gonna have our news be entertainment' and the dems were like 'we're gonna have our entertainment be news' and the right was like 'we can do that too assholes' This.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
for some reason when i tell people they're unintelligent and unable to grasp reality, they get angry and uncooperative. is anyone else having similar problems? what's the deal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Weeping Wound posted:Now, the idea of Patch Media is that there's a SINGLE editor/reporter/writer for each town covered. Choose the major city of your choice. Name a suburb. One person is tasked to do the leg work for every single thing in that suburb, whether 5,000 or 100,000 strong and write every story for it each day. Populate with police blotters and user-submitted content for whatever the local high schools or churches are doing. Sprinkle with AOL-provided content. Get paid $12.50/hr for your efforts. Repeat. Pretty much sounds like what newspapers are doing right now anyway, but instead of AOL-provided content it's just endless Associated Press reprints to fill in the endless gaps of what once might have been local reporting
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
 As a kid, I had these pegged as science fiction magazines for the longest time. Apparently it peaked at a circulation of more than a million. I really didn't get America 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
ElPez posted:
No one actually believed those were real. Even the most far-gone conspiracy theorist knew they were all fake. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
the idea of DNA-testing god's beard is pretty funny
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:No one actually believed those were real. Even the most far-gone conspiracy theorist knew they were all fake. Well that's a relief, then. My reasoning was something like "Is it humor? Well, unless the punchline is 'lol nothing matters' every time, it's not particularly funny, and there's no factual content. Why print/buy this?" Like, The Onion is more obviously funny. Some of the contemporary fake news stuff is using "satire" as a cover with content bordering on that of WWN, so if it's really a problem, people got dumber.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone can see poo poo like this as anything other than the establishment throwing a temper tantrum and desperately grasping at their slipping influence: http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3765A225-B773-4F57-B21A-A265F4B5692C
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
if you can't trust the cia who can you trust
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
journalism's good now actually https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/808718180277485572
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:journalism's good now actually You know, I know we are never going to reach some platonic ideal where journalism is in all ways really serious investigative work in all ways everywhere, but even reading news that are actually real events has to be better than straight up fake news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
The worst part about it seems to be that any story can be called fake news for convenience. Want to cast doubt? Do it by lumping it in with actual fabricated stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
complaining about bad journalism obfuscates the fact that in the 2016 election, tons of literally false stories from completely garbage sources were spread by primarily trump voters and they believed them to be facts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
lol the biggest lie of the entire election was that hillary clinton had the election in the bag and you bought it hook line and sinker you stinker
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:lol the biggest lie of the entire election was that hillary clinton had the election in the bag i seem to recall a certain idiot king kowtowing to the trump thread on 11/10
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
its baloogan. baloogan was the one kowtowing
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
yeh i bought in too; which is why you always must be on guard for fake news, i dont believe a drat thing on the news any more!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:yeh i bought in too; which is why you always must be on guard for fake news, i dont believe a drat thing on the news any more! laffo of u don't assume all news is fake and go off gut instinct
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
i like the baloogan gimmick more when it sticks to applying its insane worldview to reality. when it goes full "just saying nonsense to troll" it's boring
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
cams posted:i like the baloogan gimmick more when it sticks to applying its insane worldview to reality. when it goes full "just saying nonsense to troll" it's boring
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
like the goal of suppressing 3 million voters by next round of elections (both 2018 and 2020)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Scionix posted:crazy idea here but how about we educate our citizens so they can distinguish "fake" news instead of attempting to censor news The problem is that people don't want to distinguish fake news. No amount of education can get in the way of someone who desperately wants to believe. It's pretty easy for a fake story to be more attractive than reality could possibly be; even here, an Onion story posted without attribution or links usually tricks a few people before someone gets suspicious and punches the first few lines into Google.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The problem is that people don't want to distinguish fake news. No amount of education can get in the way of someone who desperately wants to believe. It's pretty easy for a fake story to be more attractive than reality could possibly be; even here, an Onion story posted without attribution or links usually tricks a few people before someone gets suspicious and punches the first few lines into Google. If liberals were capable of honestly asking what material and cultural conditions caused people to behave this way then perhaps there'd be some hope of stopping the authoritarian backlash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If liberals were capable of honestly asking what material and cultural conditions caused people to behave this way then perhaps there'd be some hope of stopping the authoritarian backlash. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Everyone wants to explain Trump by either appealing to some kind of timeless font of human stupidity or by claiming that some totally unprecedented wave of 'fake news' or Russian hacking or something stole the election. Either it's completely timeless or it's completely unprecedented but the one thing it couldn't possibly be is a reflection on the actual specific failures of contemporary liberalism or the fact prominent liberals participated in destroying the social democratic institutions and norms that a smarter generation of liberals created 60 years ago to prevent exactly this kind of scenario from playing out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Everyone wants to explain Trump by either appealing to some kind of timeless font of human stupidity or by claiming that some totally unprecedented wave of 'fake news' or Russian hacking or something stole the election. Either it's completely timeless or it's completely unprecedented but the one thing it couldn't possibly be is a reflection on the actual specific failures of contemporary liberalism or the fact prominent liberals participated in destroying the social democratic institutions and norms that a smarter generation of liberals created 60 years ago to prevent exactly this kind of scenario from playing out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
cams posted:complaining about bad journalism obfuscates the fact that in the 2016 election, tons of literally false stories from completely garbage sources were spread by primarily trump voters and they believed them to be facts. Complaining about Trump supporters spreading fake news obfuscates the fact the news media has been doninated by fake news for the past 30-ish years. Just because it messed up the election results for you doesn't mean that's the most damaging example of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
cams posted:from start to finish this is nonsense A good argument, well made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Complaining about Trump supporters spreading fake news obfuscates the fact the news media has been doninated by fake news for the past 30-ish years. Just because it messed up the election results for you doesn't mean that's the most damaging example of it. Helsing posted:A good argument, well made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
"people made tons of money creating blatantly fake news that they could spread for advertising dollars and it was read and believed by an absurd amount of people BUT, while we're on the subject, i think you should consider my stupid agenda that is tangentially related"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
the american left is such poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
The election happened way too long ago for you to still be melting down this hard over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
cams posted:"people made tons of money creating blatantly fake news that they could spread for advertising dollars and it was read and believed by an absurd amount of people Concern over the news media willfully going along artificial stories like "weapons of mass destruction" is a stupid, tangentially related agenda. Got it. Edit: cams posted:the american left is such poo poo Please give up on us. We're loving begging you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The election happened way too long ago for you to still be melting down this hard over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Concern over the news media willfully going along artificial stories like "weapons of mass destruction" is a stupid, tangentially related agenda. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
cams posted:yes because it is entirely different and distinguishable from the specific phenomena that occurred during the 2016 election. you want to use this to push your narrative which is unrelated, which is what tons of democrats are currently doing with regards to the russia issue. piles of poo poo that can't comprehend issues at hand because they are too busy trying to win arguments against no one. I think your first mistake is assuming we're on the same side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
MizPiz posted:I think your first mistake is assuming we're on the same side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 01:33
|
|