> As a journalist, I think a lot about what to publish and what not to. Not based on the opinions or world views held, but based on the validity of the arguments. The recommendation algorithms only care about maximizing views.

Maximizing "view count" is a bit simplistic way to think about the internet. Traditional media (e.g., TV, newspapers, magazines) are also incentivized to maximize view count. The difference between traditional media and new social media is that newer media is not held responsible for the content they publish. If a newspaper publishes an obviously false story, they need to retract it otherwise they lose credibility. If Facebook does the same, they blame it on the individual and say they can't be expected to police their networks.

The problem is not about maximizing views, it's about accountability.

Where's the accountability in a correction? Traditional media has always buried their corrections such that only a handful of readers or viewers actually see them. And even if one finds the correction, one has to dig up the original story to figure out how the correction affects it.

> Where's the accountability in a correction? Traditional media has always buried their corrections such that only a handful of readers or viewers actually see them.

Correcting a mistake is by definition accountability. If there was no accountability, there would never be any correction, and anyone would be free to lie or be sloppy. One can definitely take issue with the way certain publications make corrections, but new media does not even attempt to do anything.

Either way, journalism is (used to be?) a credibility business. Imagine trying to apply the same standard to social networks.

I follow people on twitter who have a history of being focused on correct representation of facts. I trust them much more than anyone should trust what is written in a typical news paper. The trick is that they keep to subject areas they know and they know how to read original sources properly.

There's no problem in applying even higher standards to social networks than for news, the problem, if we want to call it that, is that most people don't really care.

Journalism stops to be in the Credibility business the moment it enters the Identity business. Belonging to a group (on ideological or other grounds) becomes tied up with a shared world view and the papers and other media become the forum where those memes take shape and reinforce or weed out each other, often with less regard to objective truth than to usefulness for the social cohesion of the group.

Traditional media gets 60% of advertisement dollar spend for producing content. Accountability disappears when media outlets are either pushing the same narrative or take the role of opposition in the fight of the attention economy. The incentive is the same for old and new media. The New York Times is even comprised and would have been in chapter 11 with an Obama the 2nd.

Ever heard a news anchor saying nothing happened today?

In my experience, the lack of common ground and the loss of consensus came first, and the FAANG algorithms simply followed suit. Whenever Youtube tries to suppress certain (non-violent) viewpoints, they face a tremendous backlash.