It's pointless to reply in a dead thread, but oh well.
FB & Slashdot are different in most every way. Let's put that aside.
Every source (or originator, conveyer, aggregator, etc.) imposes some degree of editorial bias. Some strive to meet a specific standard, while others bias on purpose, and others to maximize economic gain. Not just websites. Also newspapers, magazines, radio, video, non-fiction books, academic journals, and so on. None is perfect.
Even those that strive for the ideal of being perfectly objective impose a bias — humans are involved. A wise citizen learns the bias(es) of each source, and works to filter that out. He also reads several sources, of known and differing bias(es), to yield a good approximation of knowing "the actual story." Better yet, he relies on rely on more than just a few dailies. Monthly, long-format journalism publications take a broader view (still with bias) that helps put the daily news (i.e., gossip) into context. Also diplomatic magazines such as Foreign Affairs, books on a topic, and so on. Primary sources should always be sought-out, but even then one must filter.
That is, read widely, filter information from anyone, to gain a reasonable understanding of any particular subject or event.
Last point: My original comment was that AOL wanted to be the sole conduit users employed when using internet mail or the web. That model failed. Contemporary aggregators, like Slashdot, don't attempt to impose themselves as the sole interface to news & discussion. FB, on the other hand, is indeed pursuing this fool's goal of luring members into eventually accepting FB as their sole conduit/source, or at least the middle-man through which all goes.
My point was just to make that distinction, as it was apropos. This also implied, then directly stated (here, where it will lay unread), that a any website aiming to be the "sole middle man" will never achieve it. Many examples from the last 20 years are well known.
Oh wait, maybe this time it's different!