Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by bunderbunder on Thursday September 08, 2016 @06:40PM
(#12458062)
There's what a thing was originally designed to be, and then there's what a thing currently is. They aren't always the same thing.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by gozur88 on Thursday September 08, 2016 @07:02PM
(#12458232)
It's still mostly a social networking site, and to the extent "serious" content threatens the social networking aspect, Facebook has an interest in placing limits.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by PhasmaFelis on Thursday September 08, 2016 @09:07PM
(#12458958)
Lots of people have an interest in doing things that are bad for other people generally. That doesn't actually mean the rest of us should be okay with it.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by gozur88 on Thursday September 08, 2016 @09:13PM
(#12458979)
Can the rest of us not go to other web sites for this kind of content?
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by vidarh on Friday September 09, 2016 @02:27AM
(#12460018)
The rest of us can, but the question is to what extent the rest of us are or will in the future.
It's irrelevant if the most fantastic analysis of news and current affairs is readily available around the corner if people stop going there.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by dragonwriter on Friday September 09, 2016 @12:53PM
(#12463976)
> The rest of us can, but the question is to what extent the rest of us are or will in the future.
Look, if people aren't going to choose news-focused sites over social-networking-focused sites, then existing social-networking-focused sites that bait-and-switch their users into a news-focused experience are just going to lose to actual social networking sites, starting the problem back at zero.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by gozur88 on Friday September 09, 2016 @04:01AM
(#12460350)
I don't think you need to force-feed hard news to people. People who would read it will seek it out - the sorts of people who are content with what FB serves up are the kind of people who didn't read newspapers before the web and were content to get their news from daytime television.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by mikeash on Thursday September 08, 2016 @06:45PM
(#12458097)
And there's also what it ought to be in order to benefit humanity the most, which is often a third thing.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by dragonwriter on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:03AM
(#12461733)
True in general, but not relevant in this particular case. Facebook is still a social networking site with an incidental public affairs use, and not the other way around.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by pessimizer on Thursday September 08, 2016 @09:06PM
(#12458957)
Why would a social networking platform prioritize wedding photos over news? Is the news less "social"? Aren't weddings news? You're begging the question here.
Re:“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall ...
by Anagmate on Saturday September 17, 2016 @08:15PM
(#12523224)
wedding photos keep you on facebook, which means more time spent on facebook -> more ads server & more behavior tracked. If you click the news, it will take you away from facebook.
That Facebook is a social networking platform that some people incidentally use to try to relay news of general public concern, not an online public affairs platform with an incidental social networking function?