While I might be a little sympathetic to the news organisations, I'm not unhappy. I never wanted Facebook to operate as a news feed, despite the fact that they called their main page a "News...
While I might be a little sympathetic to the news organisations, I'm not unhappy. I never wanted Facebook to operate as a news feed, despite the fact that they called their main page a "News Feed". The only news I go to Facebook for is news about my family and friends: what they're doing, what they're thinking, what they're feeling. I go elsewhere for hard news. The fact that Facebook unilaterally decide to usurp my feed of news about my people with articles from news organisations was never a good thing, and if news organisations came to rely on that unwanted usurpation for their traffic, they were merely taking advantage of something that I, as a Facebook user, never wanted.
They'll have to learn to get along with Facebook, and find another way to put their news articles in front of my eyeballs. Like Reddit or Tildes or Google - all places that I go to for news. Not Facebook.
For me, the issue is that fewer and fewer people are exposed to news at all. When a substantial proportion of the populace has no idea what's going on around them, democracy suffers. News has been...
For me, the issue is that fewer and fewer people are exposed to news at all.
When a substantial proportion of the populace has no idea what's going on around them, democracy suffers.
News has been bundled into previous platforms: print magazines/entertainment, music on radio channels, public spaces like stands at malls, news on tv channels, news channels in cable packages, news on internet "start pages", news on social media platforms.
What happens when all our platforms unbundle news and everyone who wants to find what's going on has to actively seek it out?
Yeah, but, as we've seen, Facebook is not the best way to get your news. Facebook's algorithms are intended to show you more of what you like, rather than what you need. This reinforces the filter...
Yeah, but, as we've seen, Facebook is not the best way to get your news. Facebook's algorithms are intended to show you more of what you like, rather than what you need. This reinforces the filter bubble we all already live in.
Without news input at all, your bubble is 100% you. I'd say that's worse than slanted or view-reinforcing news any day. You're left with your unfiltered view without any context. What am I missing?
Without news input at all, your bubble is 100% you.
I'd say that's worse than slanted or view-reinforcing news any day. You're left with your unfiltered view without any context.
That it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Facebook is not the only source of news. In fact, Facebook is just another link aggregator sourcing news from actual news sites. Removing news from...
What am I missing?
That it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Facebook is not the only source of news. In fact, Facebook is just another link aggregator sourcing news from actual news sites. Removing news from Facebook does not suddenly stop the entire flow of news on the internet.
I don't get facebook. Sure, I have an account, I've made a post or two, but I don't get why all of these features are there. Why do I want news in a feed that's supposed to be updates on the lives...
I don't get facebook. Sure, I have an account, I've made a post or two, but I don't get why all of these features are there.
Why do I want news in a feed that's supposed to be updates on the lives of my friends and family? Why do people feel the need to spam their profile with game requests? Why are there games on FB?
I consider myself fairly well ingrained with the internet, but I still can't grasp the concept of facebook- why people would want it or want to use it. At this point I just use it for SSO when it's the only option.
If someone could explain the concept and draws of facebook, that'd be much appreciated.
Those things are there to keep people engaged with Facebook, and to prevent them wandering off to other websites and apps. If you can get your news on Facebook, you won't go to news sites. If you...
Why do I want news in a feed that's supposed to be updates on the lives of my friends and family? Why do people feel the need to spam their profile with game requests? Why are there games on FB?
Those things are there to keep people engaged with Facebook, and to prevent them wandering off to other websites and apps. If you can get your news on Facebook, you won't go to news sites. If you can play games on Facebook, you won't open other games on your phone. And, the longer you stay on Facebook, the more advertisements Facebook can show you. Every time you refresh a page, or go to another page, Facebook can show you more ads. But they can't show you ads if you leave. That's why they need to keep you engaged with Facebook by giving you those extra features.
Even their recent changes to remove hard news from people's News Feeds are designed to keep people engaged with Facebook. Sure, Facebook has copped a lot of flak for distributing fake news, but they're not making these changes out of the goodness of their heart. They did studies and found out that people were happier on Facebook if they weren't seeing hard news. They were more satisfied in their time on Facebook if they saw more posts from their friends than from news organisations. Even if they're spending less time on Facebook, they're more engaged during that time. So, it makes sense to reduce the hard news and increase the users' happiness - and therefore keep them more engaged, and be able to keep showing them ads.
Stop looking at this from the lens of how Facebook benefits users, and consider how those users benefit Facebook. Every happy engaged Facebook user is another pair of eyes for Facebook to show advertising to.
Makes sense, thanks! I honestly still don't see the draw of facebook though. Even though instagram is owned by FB, I feel like it is 100x more appealing than it. Not sure why.
Makes sense, thanks!
I honestly still don't see the draw of facebook though.
Even though instagram is owned by FB, I feel like it is 100x more appealing than it. Not sure why.
Your family & friends. It's not about the website itself, it's about having a connection to the people in your life. I've noticed a preference among younger people for image-based content rather...
I honestly still don't see the draw of facebook though.
Your family & friends. It's not about the website itself, it's about having a connection to the people in your life.
Not sure why.
I've noticed a preference among younger people for image-based content rather than text-based content. Might that be it?
Painful, yes, but the theme of the article is change, not death. It's about staying "agile" (ugh, I hate that term) in a news landscape that is changing drastically from year to year as opposed to...
Painful, yes, but the theme of the article is change, not death. It's about staying "agile" (ugh, I hate that term) in a news landscape that is changing drastically from year to year as opposed to decade to decade.
While I might be a little sympathetic to the news organisations, I'm not unhappy. I never wanted Facebook to operate as a news feed, despite the fact that they called their main page a "News Feed". The only news I go to Facebook for is news about my family and friends: what they're doing, what they're thinking, what they're feeling. I go elsewhere for hard news. The fact that Facebook unilaterally decide to usurp my feed of news about my people with articles from news organisations was never a good thing, and if news organisations came to rely on that unwanted usurpation for their traffic, they were merely taking advantage of something that I, as a Facebook user, never wanted.
They'll have to learn to get along with Facebook, and find another way to put their news articles in front of my eyeballs. Like Reddit or Tildes or Google - all places that I go to for news. Not Facebook.
For me, the issue is that fewer and fewer people are exposed to news at all.
When a substantial proportion of the populace has no idea what's going on around them, democracy suffers.
News has been bundled into previous platforms: print magazines/entertainment, music on radio channels, public spaces like stands at malls, news on tv channels, news channels in cable packages, news on internet "start pages", news on social media platforms.
What happens when all our platforms unbundle news and everyone who wants to find what's going on has to actively seek it out?
Yeah, but, as we've seen, Facebook is not the best way to get your news. Facebook's algorithms are intended to show you more of what you like, rather than what you need. This reinforces the filter bubble we all already live in.
Without news input at all, your bubble is 100% you.
I'd say that's worse than slanted or view-reinforcing news any day. You're left with your unfiltered view without any context.
What am I missing?
That it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Facebook is not the only source of news. In fact, Facebook is just another link aggregator sourcing news from actual news sites. Removing news from Facebook does not suddenly stop the entire flow of news on the internet.
I don't get facebook. Sure, I have an account, I've made a post or two, but I don't get why all of these features are there.
Why do I want news in a feed that's supposed to be updates on the lives of my friends and family? Why do people feel the need to spam their profile with game requests? Why are there games on FB?
I consider myself fairly well ingrained with the internet, but I still can't grasp the concept of facebook- why people would want it or want to use it. At this point I just use it for SSO when it's the only option.
If someone could explain the concept and draws of facebook, that'd be much appreciated.
Those things are there to keep people engaged with Facebook, and to prevent them wandering off to other websites and apps. If you can get your news on Facebook, you won't go to news sites. If you can play games on Facebook, you won't open other games on your phone. And, the longer you stay on Facebook, the more advertisements Facebook can show you. Every time you refresh a page, or go to another page, Facebook can show you more ads. But they can't show you ads if you leave. That's why they need to keep you engaged with Facebook by giving you those extra features.
Even their recent changes to remove hard news from people's News Feeds are designed to keep people engaged with Facebook. Sure, Facebook has copped a lot of flak for distributing fake news, but they're not making these changes out of the goodness of their heart. They did studies and found out that people were happier on Facebook if they weren't seeing hard news. They were more satisfied in their time on Facebook if they saw more posts from their friends than from news organisations. Even if they're spending less time on Facebook, they're more engaged during that time. So, it makes sense to reduce the hard news and increase the users' happiness - and therefore keep them more engaged, and be able to keep showing them ads.
Stop looking at this from the lens of how Facebook benefits users, and consider how those users benefit Facebook. Every happy engaged Facebook user is another pair of eyes for Facebook to show advertising to.
Makes sense, thanks!
I honestly still don't see the draw of facebook though.
Even though instagram is owned by FB, I feel like it is 100x more appealing than it. Not sure why.
Your family & friends. It's not about the website itself, it's about having a connection to the people in your life.
I've noticed a preference among younger people for image-based content rather than text-based content. Might that be it?
Painful, yes, but the theme of the article is change, not death. It's about staying "agile" (ugh, I hate that term) in a news landscape that is changing drastically from year to year as opposed to decade to decade.