The media and journalists need to ADJUST how they use social networks in reporting.
Algorithms promote controversy. We've seen it on Youtube, FB, and Twitter. So, if your "news report" says people online think 'X' because it is trending, that doesn't mean a majority.
Social networks are not polling or statistical. They're for profit companies filtering information to keep more eyeballs on the screen, not report.
@sikkdays there's no money in journalism
@kai There was when we respected the profession. There was a lot of money there. Perhaps that was the problem. Money corrupts in a capitalist system. There's never enough.
@sikkdays I think there was money in classified ads before craigslist, but never any money in journalism 😔
@kai Pulitzer and Hearst might disagree.
@sikkdays I think the modern sources are desperately trying to get back to paid subscriptions, but the fact that I don't have one myself is a testament to how hard this is.
@kai That's why journalism was so successful in Hearst's day. There was no source for information. People believe it is freely available online, so no need for papers, magazines or even TV news. The problem is that the internet is no longer decentralized. It's basically AOL. Googs, FB, Twitter, Amazon are in it to sell not inform.
@sikkdays You summed up the list of companies very well.
In this interview, Jarett Kobek mentions that Rubert Murdoch owns everything and doesn't even live in the States https://otherppl.com/jarett-kobek-interview-3/
and the recent Ezra Klein episode "Neoliberalism and its discontents" https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast is really interesting about the commoditization of everything
it does seem like our current path will become untenable
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!