Posted on 04/04/2018 11:06:14 AM PDT by ethom
The New York Times is what Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg considers “good, trustworthy” journalism.
During an interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein, Zuckerberg spoke about attempts by Facebook to crack down on what is deemed “fake news.” Zuckerberg laid out three kinds of fake news: spammers, state actors, and legitimate news sources that are “speaking their truth” although they may have “varying levels of accuracy or trustworthiness.”
In his conversation, Zuckerberg referenced the January 2018 News Feed changes. In that announcement, Facebook claimed it would be changing the news people see in their feeds to prioritize news that is “local,” “informative,” and “trustworthy.” To discern what news sources are trustworthy, Zuckerberg said he was letting the people decide:
Here's how this will work. As part of our ongoing quality surveys, we will now ask people whether they're familiar with a news source and, if so, whether they trust that source. The idea is that some news organizations are only trusted by their readers or watchers, and others are broadly trusted across society even by those who don't follow them directly. (We eliminate from the sample those who aren't familiar with a source, so the output is a ratio of those who trust the source to those who are familiar with it.)
At the time of the announcement, there was speculation over how the change would impact small, new publishers and if the system could be rigged in order to favor one ideology over another.
Zuckerberg’s newest comments, however, seem to suggest that the trusted sources will be establishment, mainstream sources.
In the Vox interview, he pointed to two examples of journalism that he believes people trust, even if they do not personally read them: The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
Zuckerberg said:
Take The Wall Street Journal or New York Times. Even if not everyone reads them, the people who don’t read them typically still think they’re good, trustworthy journalism. Whereas if you get down to blogs that may be on more of the fringe, they’ll have their strong supporters, but people who don’t necessarily read them often don’t trust them as much.
When Klein mentioned his own personal history as a blogger, and how the change may be biased against up-and-coming publishers, Zuckerberg responded by saying the impact of the change would actually just be “subtle” because Facebook is still devoted to “giving everyone a voice.”
In addition to discussing the New York Times as an example of a trustworthy news source, Zuckerberg also talked about ways to make the site itself more trustworthy by being more transparent.
Zuckerberg admitted Facebook has not been “transparent enough.” Part of making the site more transparent, according to Zuckerberg, is allowing users to appeal when their content gets taken down from Facebook. He explained:
[...] Right now, if you post something on Facebook and someone reports it and our community operations and review team looks at it and decides that it needs to get taken down, there’s not really a way to appeal that. I think in any kind of good-functioning democratic system, there needs to be a way to appeal. And I think we can build that internally as a first step.
But over the long term, what I’d really like to get to is an independent appeal. So maybe folks at Facebook make the first decision based on the community standards that are outlined, and then people can get a second opinion. You can imagine some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court, that is made up of independent folks who don’t work for Facebook, who ultimately make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech in a community that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world.
Considering Facebook has recently came under fire for its decision to ban the Facebook page for a European far-right group and the pages of its leaders -- out of all the pages that violate its rules -- Zuckerberg’s talk of transparency is refreshing. The choice of “independent folks” who are truly independent, however, remains to be seen.
Mark, you’re rich for life, you don’t have to keep telling big Whopper lies like this one.
Zuck the Cuck is only second to Jeb Bush in being a Cuckold
Zuckerberg thinks NYT is a trustworthy publication? Did he learn this from the New York Times?
The WaPo told him so...................
Suckerburg is circling the bowl.
He is about to be fired any minute now. And he knows it.
And I love it.
It’s just as ‘Good and Trustworthy’ as the Pravda.
‘Good, Trustworthy’
Remember kids: whatever a Liberal says, believe the opposite.
It is about as reliable, honest, non biased as fb..
Of all the far left billionaire types, Z sometimes appears to be trying - sometimes- to do good things. But he will never recover from his commie pinko dictatorially- inclined tendencies so long as he continues reading The NY Times. I wish him all the best and maybe the times will go out of business someday ?
FB, Amazon and Google try to circle the wagons....
George Armstrong Zuck
Deleted my Facebook account 4 days ago. Had to post some pretty foul words about *uckerberg to get them to do it. Social media was a cool idea, but has become detrimental to our inter-action within our society. I don’t Tweet, either.
Indeed.
When Klein mentioned his own personal history as a blogger, and how the change may be biased against up-and-coming publishers, Zuckerberg responded by saying the impact of the change would actually just be "subtle" because Facebook is still devoted to "giving everyone a voice."
The interview was in Vox, another bunch of Partisan Media Shills. If Zuckerberg were serious about this, he'd have givven the interview to one of the organizations the FB leftwing scumbag is going to ban. Thanks ethom.
As always with NYT threads.
Ezra Klein “interviews” Mark Zuckerberg. Now that’s a hoot! They’re part of the same “tribe!”
My goodness, what an arrogant elitist billionaire, as he places himself and some "independent folks who don't work for Facebook" as superior to the Supreme Law of the Land--the Constitution of the United States of America!
In the mind of the Progressive Zuckerberg, just who is it that appointed him and his little company ("little," as compared to the United States of America, where he is privileged to own such a company) to claim the lawful right to deem that some group will be able to "make the final judgment call on what should be acceptable speech" for citizens who condescend to post their ideas on a virtual platform called "facebook"?
The recent "progressive" notion of what is loosely described as "political correctness," or "sensitivity," is simply censorship by another name, whereby some people, who believe themselves to be superior to their fellows, have assumed a right they do not possess as citizens under the U. S. Constitution.
Such censorship is a crude attempt to shut down political/religious opinions and intelligent discussion, substituting coercive pressure by those who wish no such reasoned debate.
Generations who have been "imprisoned" in schools which failed to teach them of their individual value and purpose under the ideas expressed in their nation's Declaration of Independence and protected under their written Constitution should now be informed that the First Amendment protects their freedom of speech, of expression, and that no "progressive regressive" has a right to censor away that right.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson"Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone." - Thomas Jefferson, TITLE: Statute of Religious Freedom. EDITION: Washington ed. viii, 454. EDITION: Ford ed., ii, 237. PLACE: [none given] DATE: 1779
As my Late Mother used to say, “some people are so smart, they’re stupid”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.