4 ms·

Zuckerberg also addressed some of these criticisms in responses to comments on his original post https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271 https://w

Zuckerberg also addressed some of these criticisms in responses to comments on his original post https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271

pg314 10y ago
From that post: "Our goal is to show people the content they will find most meaningful, and people want accurate news." People might say they want accurate news, but what many really want is news that supports their views, i.e. confirmation bias. Traditional papers try to give you a balanced mix of news. Of course, they don't always get it right. Before the TV and the internet, they used to enjoy stable monopolies: one newspaper per city (see the section "We Buy Some Newspapers ... Newspapers" in Warren Buffet's 2012 letter to the shareholders http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2012ltr.pdf http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2012ltr.pdf). To get to that monopoly, it helped to have good independent journalism. Once they had established their monopoly, the culture often remained (e.g. the board of editors defends its independence). That culture is still largely intact today, even though their margins are under heavy pressure from the internet. Facebook has a commercial incentive to feed you posts that you will click on. With their detailed user profiles and immediate feedback, the result is predictable: in the case of the election, you will get positive stories of your candidate, and negative stories of the opposite candidate. Facebook faces some big ethical challenges, and I'm not sure how to fix them. In the mean time, I think we should cherish existing newspapers. If they disappear, without being replaced by something as good or better, we will miss them badly. The president-elect has been bashing them during the election, and is continuing to do so. If you don't have a subscription yet, I suggest you seriously consider subscribing to the NYT or WaPo.

pg314 10y ago

From that post: "Our goal is to show people the content they will find most meaningful, and people want accurate news." People might say they want accurate news, but what many really want is news that supports their views, i.e. confirmation bias. Traditional papers try to give you a balanced mix of news. Of course, they don't always get it right. Before the TV and the internet, they used to enjoy stable monopolies: one newspaper per city (see the section "We Buy Some Newspapers ... Newspapers" in Warren Buffet's 2012 letter to the shareholders http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2012ltr.pdf http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2012ltr.pdf). To get to that monopoly, it helped to have good independent journalism. Once they had established their monopoly, the culture often remained (e.g. the board of editors defends its independence). That culture is still largely intact today, even though their margins are under heavy pressure from the internet. Facebook has a commercial incentive to feed you posts that you will click on. With their detailed user profiles and immediate feedback, the result is predictable: in the case of the election, you will get positive stories of your candidate, and negative stories of the opposite candidate. Facebook faces some big ethical challenges, and I'm not sure how to fix them. In the mean time, I think we should cherish existing newspapers. If they disappear, without being replaced by something as good or better, we will miss them badly. The president-elect has been bashing them during the election, and is continuing to do so. If you don't have a subscription yet, I suggest you seriously consider subscribing to the NYT or WaPo.