Re:Facebook Can’t Cope with the World It’s Created
by dredmorbius on Sunday November 26, 2017 @09:40AM
(#15781054)
Reputation and kill switches. Ultimately: editorial voice.
If I've got tools to block sources of clickbait, and those feed into reputation systems, that's a start. On Google's properties, I can block G+ posters, but I cannot block a YouTube channel. Not even if I'm logged in -- that channel will still show up in searches and recommendations. I'm actually better of not logging in so that recommendations are keyed far more to current search and view history, and there is no long lag of "you watched this once three years ago so we'll cram it down your throat".
For Web, I've taken to fairly ruthlessly blocking clickbait domains at the firewall. They pretty much completely disappear.
(And, if I've got second thoughts or want to poke through: archive or simplified-view sites will generally show me the content. And it's almost never worth looking at.)
I'm not saying that my individual tools will scale out, but if they're tied in to larger systems, and feed back to what's promoted, there's the possiblity of this.
Ultimately, though, massive media channels have to take an active voice in what they do or don't permit, most especially where there are real and serious harms possible. That's the editorial voice option. It's not a popular opinion on much of the Web, and it's not one I would have advocated even just a few years ago, but I'm coming to feel it's increasingly proving necessary, and that the historical record, over the past 500 years of mass communications, starting with the printing press, bears this out repeatedly.
If I've got tools to block sources of clickbait, and those feed into reputation systems, that's a start. On Google's properties, I can block G+ posters, but I cannot block a YouTube channel. Not even if I'm logged in -- that channel will still show up in searches and recommendations. I'm actually better of not logging in so that recommendations are keyed far more to current search and view history, and there is no long lag of "you watched this once three years ago so we'll cram it down your throat".
For Web, I've taken to fairly ruthlessly blocking clickbait domains at the firewall. They pretty much completely disappear.
(And, if I've got second thoughts or want to poke through: archive or simplified-view sites will generally show me the content. And it's almost never worth looking at.)
I'm not saying that my individual tools will scale out, but if they're tied in to larger systems, and feed back to what's promoted, there's the possiblity of this.
Ultimately, though, massive media channels have to take an active voice in what they do or don't permit, most especially where there are real and serious harms possible. That's the editorial voice option. It's not a popular opinion on much of the Web, and it's not one I would have advocated even just a few years ago, but I'm coming to feel it's increasingly proving necessary, and that the historical record, over the past 500 years of mass communications, starting with the printing press, bears this out repeatedly.
Free speech is not a responsiblity-free zone.