These kinds of statements seem deep and meaingful, but ultimately they are vaccuous.

The only reason any market entity exists is because people buy things from them, its the buyers fault.

The only reason corrupt governments exist is because the people elect them, or at the very least don't overthrow them, its the governed's fault.

Its a stupid oversimplication that places all the blame on the giant, vauge, and futile "everyone", while ignoring incentive structures and pretty much every ounce of nuance and sublty.

Not to mention that it totally ignores how entities like the aformentioned, and amagoosoftbook shape our preferences, both actively, and unitentionally.

Its a hopeless putdown of basicly any ability for anything to change, ever.

I am speaking specifically about this particular article and the topic it is covering.

Whatever assumptions you used to arrive at your conclusions were introduced by the story you wanted to tell. I'd rather you didn't extrapolate from what I wrote.

Ask me nicely and I will tell you why fixing Facebook and Google are not the answer.

The original replier doesn't sound as if they're extropolating to me. You're also telling a story, and shouldn't be the only one in the conversation to do so.

> Over time, the noise is stripped away and what we get is the official narrative and that is one we can "count" on.

I'd ask why fixing Facebook or Google isn't the answer, but that would play into _your_ extropolating narrative. Instead, why shouldn't Google and Facebook be responsible, and held accountable, for posting absolutely fake news automatically? It's not a "firehose" or "unsubstantiated" information, it's projected as "news".

You've simply restated the problem. Why not contribute to the discussion?

How would you fix Google and Facebook? How would you hold them responsible and accountable? And why?

> You've simply restated the problem. Why not contribute to the discussion?

I'm sorry, but I've already asked a direct question and do not consider it a restatement of the problem.

It really would be a better exercise for you to think through how you would actually hold them accountable.

What service do they provide, concretely? What are their SLAs? What does your contract with them say? Every service is a contract between a service provider and a paying customer. There is a specific set of parameters the service provider must adhere to. What would a contract with Facebook or Google and their non-paying customers look like? Should people pay for the service or should we expect Google to eat the cost?

What is "news"? How do you know it when you see it? How do they detect fake news? What about all of the opinion pieces that appear on the Google News front page? Should those be included or excluded? Are we talking about white listing websites? Who controls that list and how do you get on it? Or, should Google hire people to filter the news for you?

I am asking you to think about what you are proposing so that you can see that there are problems there, some of them big in scope. Considering think about it is not a solution.

I see you've asked another series of questions without answering the one posed. In many respects, this might be seen as changing the conversation to something within your realm instead of answering a question.

> Really would be a better exercise for you to think through how you would actually hold them accountable.

In short, the questions you've posed range from "bring your life experiences together" and "think through the specifics". I have, and my thoughts remain unchanged.

Posing that many questions across such a broad range of subjects and varying levels of specificity might be seen as a disengenious way to continue the conversation.

I have posed a straightforward question. Instead of an answer, I've received only other "thought provoking" questions. In response, that's how I arrived at my question to you, two responses ago.

In the future, you might find better dialogue by answering questions posed.

Huh? Why would you blame your car or someone else's car for driving when someone slams into you from behind?

You blame the brakes when they stop braking. The car when it stops driving. Don't blame the car when the people are at fault.

It's hilarious seeing people blame Facebook as if it's some real person trying to trick everyone, when it fact it's just someone using the tool wrongly.. hint: you can use nearly every tool wrong. See: 'Man kills person with knife that is only for cutting bread.'

When you start to blame things like Facebook or Google for doing their job and presenting popular/trending topics, you lose any grasp on the real problem... and that is much uglier, so I don't blame those that do.

Would you stop using bread knives because they cut bread fine, but kill people poorly?

There's a large difference between vehicles, which are wholly owned by a consumer, and services.

Running an open source news aggregator on my personal server is something I would own and be responsible for, similar to a fully owning a car. If I selected a ride share and the driver wrecks, then a company is responsible for my personal injury as well as the service I didn't receive.

> When you start to blame things like Facebook or Google for doing their job and presenting popular/trending topics, you lose any grasp on the real problem

Suggesting someone who blames Facebook or Google has "lost sight" is a very confident statement that you have not backed up. If this question were settled then there would be no thread on HN.

I _consider_ looking into the matter more. Google and Facebook play in the news aggregation space, and getting it wrong has lead to serious questions about their role.

I stand by looking into things further. Please feel free to clarify your claim that someone has "lost grasp on the real problem" when they start to blame Facebook and Google. Should either be responsible then blame should be expected.

>If this question were settled then there would be no thread on HN.

That contradicts your idea of "free personal news" to which can be attributed to one name. (HN/Facebook..)

Blame those that do, not those that allow to do. Selling knives could be made illegal if people chose to use them badly. This is not solving any problem.

>Do I need to know shortly after an event occurs

The traditional media is pushing "minute-by-minute" news pretty hard as well, but you're right in that people would rather have information right now, instead of correct information in a little while. The result is misinformation, deliberate or not, and some times that flawed information will taint the debate afterwards.

I can understand people wanting to know if loved ones are safe, and Facebook is actually helping in that regards, but there needs to be a delay on information, long enough to get verification.

Believing that Google, YouTube and Facebook are to blame for low quality information is missing the point. Twitter and Facebook for instance have often been the source of truthful and detailed information faster than the tradition media. Likewise tradition media as also contributed to the spreading of false information. Often this isn't deliberate, but because journalists are getting increasingly worse at their job. What I believe is happening is that journalists are upset that they can just sit at their desks, cruising the internet and cover stories that way, because they aren't capable of disseminating the incoming the information they read on the internet.