Re:VPN ban update for UK households as government looks at '...
by drdexebtjl on Saturday June 20, 2026 @02:12PM
(#48611474)
News agencies don’t do personalized curation. Every reader, at least from the same city, gets exactly the same content.
Re:VPN ban update for UK households as government looks at '...
by TeMPOraL on Saturday June 20, 2026 @04:00PM
(#48612464)
> Every reader, at least from the same city, gets exactly the same content
That alone is a value add people don't realize even as they're losing it: it created a shared reality you and locals inhabited, that you could have a conversation about.
Re:VPN ban update for UK households as government looks at '...
by iamnothere on Saturday June 20, 2026 @07:08PM
(#48613880)
It also helped quite a bit with narrative enforcement.
Re:VPN ban update for UK households as government looks at '...
by TeMPOraL on Sunday June 21, 2026 @07:00AM
(#48617730)
Maybe. But then at least there was a narrative, which is valuable in itself.
Re:VPN ban update for UK households as government looks at '...
by ben_w on Sunday June 21, 2026 @03:12AM
(#48616418)
If a social media feed is purely social, news agencies have no more right to be there than to force themselves onto your table in a pub or a board games group.
Even if you want expand from social and allow commercial activity on them, it should still only be whoever you actually chose. It's not like Fox News can interrupt a BBC News broadcast on TV, or The New York Times can substitute itself for your normal copy of The Cambridge News: you chose what source you get, not an algorithm. (And there is a specific named editor to blame if some false story gets in that wasn't checked first for actually being true).
So, kill all news agencies and reporters I guess? or would there be a carve out for incumbents so they can cement their market share? who controls the approval list?