I would say for popular items FB could have a hidden true/false flag set by their own researchers. They can then score the bias of the users based on who posts and who tags false. This item just gives FB more information about the users to market.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I am sure this change helps them to understand underlying bias of individuals who post and who flag as false. I would say helps the spy algorithms or at least presents the opportunity to learn more about the product (users). It gives them easy to evaluate statistics without having to analyze the comments. You can pretty much guess the position of the person who tagged false. They could even have their own fact checkers researching popular items so from the FB perspective you could know the position of the person that posted/shared, the position of people who tag false and then the unseen true/false flag sent by Facebook to gauge the user's bias.
Many people that share political/religious items do not care if they are false. They agree with the premise of the item, the facts are just a nuisance. Please will always think something is false if they disagree with it and accept as fact anything they agree with. This goes across all ideologies and can be seen rampantly everywhere.
When I first got on the internet, early 90s Usenet, I thought this is great and will dispel all of the nut cases with crazy ideas and conspiracy theories. Most Usenet groups that I visited had some very smart people who were quick to point out fact when superstitious idea came up. In a very short period of time groups started to pop up that offered every crazy idea known to man and the major participants were the people with crazy ideas. Now the internet offers a support system for any crazy thing you want to believe. Even if everyone around you in real life tried to convince you it is a crazy idea, there's a support system waiting for you on the internet.
What makes it even worse is the impersonal nature of on-line communication. People will say all kinds of stuff on social sites and email they would never say in person. This is making us less civilized. When you live in a community and interface with your neighbors you learn to live with and accept the views of others. Even if you don't believe the same way or maybe think they are crazy you learn through life to live and let live. Now with the internet you have the choice to be a fanatic about anything and only interface with people with the exact same outlook as yourself.
Not just provide better access for domestic users.
Unfortunately the vast majority people do not think (or vote) rationally when it comes to politics. The same people that hated Bush and ridiculed him will continue to love Obama and rationalize a reason to support policies they previously despised. People who loved Bush will rationalize ways to hate Obama for the exact same policies that they loved under Bush. I have given in to the fact this will not change. Allegiance to political party is similar to sports teams i.e. Caroline fans hate Duke no matter what and vice versa.
We are essentially a one party system with two marketing arms targeting their assigned demographics.
Everything you say may be true and if you were not an AC I might take your word for it, but there is a good reason people are sceptical. For example my local news station makes a big deal everytime someone dies of the flu. Every story ends with the reminder to get your flue shot.
There are obvious questions that should be answered, 1) what was the cause of death 2) how healthy was the individual 3) did this person get the flu shot. They will not answer these questions. Go to any discussion board of an article talking about specific flu deaths and you will see these questions over and over. Without answers to these questions many people will not be convinced the shot is effective.
It doenst mean the shot is not effective but when you hide information that should be disclosed it causes doubt.
Or maybe "Traditional TV viewing" is coming back in that people are going to over the air for local channels/major networks and internet for everyhting else. At least that is what I see with my peer group.
People already pay for their internet connection, bandwith, web hosting, etc. Maybe the Telegraph could not exist on the web without ads, but that does not mean the internet could not exist. This person seems to belive that the internet exists only because of commercial content producers.
I don't see many changes. Vendors, managers, and salespeople change the buzz words every few years and talk of great paradigm shifts. Programmers continue to write code and produce actual results. In a perfect world the programmers get to choose their own tools. In the real world we have to use whatever buzz word compliant tools are thrown in the mix each year. They never actually live up to the hype and you have to dig in and find the code buried within and build stuff that works. I remember when the salespeople were touting dBase II and how programming would be completely changed. Right.
A better car analogy would be "GM unifies all vehicle drivetrains". Our new dump trucks have 111" wheelbase and look just like an impala with the trunk lid removed.
Who decides what are facts? Who decides what the 2 sides are? The government? If there ever was such a law it must have been enforced really badly at least during my lifetime (I am 54). I have always seen huge bias in news from any source. The difference that's happened over the last 20 years or so is that commentators have started to state their bias up front. I believe that is way more honest because you know what you are getting and can weight the information accordingly. The fact is that anything that comes from the mouth of a human is going to have a bias applied. The people who claim to not have bias are usually the worst culprits because they are unable to see their own bias.
Something like internet search trends is a great way to get an unbiased view of what people are interested or concerned about. This can be done completely by computer with no human interaction and bias applied. But of course the search providers will not provide the unfiltered facts. All they see is their own bias and dollar signs.
So it might make me happy to know some bad news, like my Bank just got hacked.This is nothing but trying to put a happy face on censorship. I hate "search trends" reports and articles. I wish they would factually publish that actual trends with no filtering. that would be truly interesting. I am sure this has never been done. If the trends have been real in the past then it really proves how stupid most people are. It normally appears to be as pop fluff and the same stuff the MSM is pushing as issues of the day.
The people that would be influenced by Google are the same ones influenced by People magazine and major TV networks. These people decide a lot of elections. The so called "undecided voters" which is another term for dumbass. They pay no attention to politics except that last few weeks before a presidential election. They are the swing votes that are going to go with the candidate based on good looks and charisma. The major TV networks have almost complete control over the process of selecting the candidate for these people. They have no idea that 3rd party candidates exist. I talked to a lot of people about Gary Johnson last election and many were adamant there was no 3rd party candidate this time and I didn't know what I was talking about.
Not only Google themselves could be able to swing the results. The candidate with the best SEO team might be able to influence the results. Run some negative TV ads that drop keywords is a way you know people will search. This could bring to the surface some really nasty articles written with the slant of your choice. Unfortunately negative works big time on the dumbass voter crowd.
I am old enough to remember when UI's were very good. text on green screen terminal that were made to do exactly what was needed and were as simple as possible. Then computers got more powerful and people started designing GUIs that did in fact suck because the keyboard functions people had learned no longer worked or worked differently. Everything was quirky and ran very slow. Then hardware caught up and design got much better. Then web apps started to take off and the UIs sucked because of limited browser features and rookie web developers. Then programming tools and browser features improved and "web 2.0" UIs took hold and they got much better. Most of this evolution in design was driven to create the "next big thing", to wow users into wanting your design.
Now we are in a stagnant period where no new ground breaking PC technology has come along for a while. Tablets and smartphones took off so they appear to be getting all the attention. Designers and developers hungry to be on the verge of the next big thing are focusing on tablets and copying the big players like Google and Apple. At these companies design decisions are being made based on revenue streams rather than testing and user feedback. How do we make our product maintain it's branding? How to we guide the user into our revenue stream? It is no longer about what the users want tor need it is about forcing users into a tranche that can be exploited.
I would shut closed my brain, much like when posting to