Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: 33% of Facebook Users Want Less News In Their Feed (businessinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the clickbait dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Business Insider: According to a survey of 526 random Facebook users conducted by Spot.IM, 33% of Facebook users in the U.S. want to see fewer news articles in their feeds. The survey comes at a time when Facebook is desperately trying to improve the quality of publisher articles that gain traction on its platform. Here are some important takeaways from the study: Older people are likelier to want less news in their Facebook feeds. While 33% of all respondents indicated there was too much news and shared links in their Facebook feeds, the majority of this group was individuals aged 30 or older. Those 30-44 (37%), 45-59 (36%), and 60+ (36%) said they want less news in their feeds. Young Facebook users enjoy consuming news on social media. While middle-aged and older Facebook users don't like seeing news in their feeds, those aged 18-29 were much more interested and excited to see even more news articles on Facebook. 32% of respondents in this group wanted to see more news, while just 21% wanted less. This is an encouraging sign for publishers who want to reach a new generation of news consumers. The majority of people don't care about how much news they see on Facebook. Overall, 51% of all surveyed said they simply don't care if more or less news shows up in their Facebook feeds. A study conducted in June by Columbia University says that 59% of people don't even read the articles they share.

95 comments

  1. I'd settle for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100% less intrusive bullshit in my feed

    1. Re:I'd settle for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% less intrusive bullshit in my feed

      Then unfriend people..

    2. Re:I'd settle for by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> 100% less intrusive bullshit

      Solved: I quit using Facebook years ago after posting "here's how to contact me" pics and descriptions on my profile.

    3. Re:I'd settle for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not so much, it is the astro-turfing paid promotions that are dressed up to LOOK like news that should be described as intrusive bullshit

  2. No news is good news by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Let's drive it to 0%!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. They've cleaned the response up a bit by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I didn't say I wanted less news in my feed... I said I wanted less CRAP in my feed!!! Nobody uses Facebook anymore anyway. "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi Berra

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:They've cleaned the response up a bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Crap is supposed to be news? Who knew?
      Crap Adds and False memes , and they think people want less news.

      News, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    2. Re: They've cleaned the response up a bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News on Facebook? Who knew? When I had an account all I saw was ads and regurgitation of other s opinions. No thanks. Harvest my digital proxie in other ways.

    3. Re:They've cleaned the response up a bit by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Wut??? You had news in your Facepalm feed?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  4. No news! by Vrallis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook is not a news site. I do not go to Facebook for news.

    I go there to see updates from friends. I have absolutely no interest in anything else, period.

    1. Re:No news! by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Informative

      As do I but the thing is FB can't turn the thing they were originally being used for into advertising dollars.

      To turn all of our eyeballs into dollars, they need to show us "news" they've been paid to display given certain demographics. That's why this is happening. Why they've been upping the ante with adblockers. Why they added the autoplay feature to videos and every other stupid move they've made in the past few years. They know their conversion/interaction/bullshit measurement rate is bullshit and their advertisers and stockholders are calling them on it.

      Expect it to get worse before it gets better. Or FB falls off that internet cliff that MySpace went over before them.

    2. Re:No news! by darthsilun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wish I had mod points. I never seem to have them when I want to use them.

      I'm like you, I want to see pics my friends post and hear about what they're doing. I have a few friends who have never mastered email or sharing pics, but fb works pretty good for them.

      And in the mean time I'll wait for a better version of AdBlockPro.

    3. Re:No news! by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just Facebook, though. Honestly, part of the problem is that too many of my Facebook "friends" are under the impression that their social media presence is so influential that they have a moral obligation to post really important "news" to their feed on a regular basis. Aunt Alice wants me to read a story about how Trump is a secret genius while ex-classmate Jeremy wants us all to read a story about how women are mistreated in the workplace. Unfortunately for them, I'm just logging on so I can see pictures of my nieces and nephews. For everyone else, I'd be happy to read about what's going on with your lives, but I'm completely disinterested in your political views.

      Maybe it's just me?

    4. Re:No news! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's just you. Facebook is hugely popular among people like those you mention. If you're not like that, and you don't want to read their political articles about FEMA death camps and how Hillary is a secret Satanist and how important Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings are, and you don't like all the news articles Facebook itself presents to you in its feeds, then maybe you shouldn't be using Facebook.

    5. Re:No news! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The political stuff is the worst. Every wingnut in your feed wants to spread their particular gospel. It's even worse than the blatantly religious stuff. The problem is probably what some people consider "news". Plus you've got idiots that start foaming at the mouth because they stumble onto something that feeds into their favorite narrative. It doesn't occur to them that it's an obvious satire site. It's sad, hilarious, and annoying all at once.

      All memes are bullshit.

      Someone may have a valid observation but they quickly run off the rails and jump the shark with extreme and absurd sh*t.

      I could understand how a telepath might go nuts and would just want it all to shut off.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re: No news! by thundercattt · · Score: 1

      If it was news relevant to me, sure. But trending news about Bieber, Kardashian, Trump, Hilary is NOT news to a Canadian male. Now, the sad news about Mr. Fuji passing posted by a wrestling group apart of. THAT'S news.

    7. Re:No news! by Grunschev · · Score: 1

      It's not just you.

      I'd love it if my FB friends just posted what they do rather than what they think or believe. When you tell me what you do, you come across as interesting, funny, generous, creative, kind. When you tell me what you think, you come across as illiterate, innumerate, and unreasonable.

    8. Re: No news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Bieber is Canadian. And by the way, won't you please take him back?

    9. Re:No news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just baked a scrumptious Donald Trump cake. What do you think now, motherfucker?

    10. Re:No news! by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Every time one of my friends on facebook shares something from some crap aggregator site like "SuperInterestingCoolFunFacts", I go to the little drop-down menu on that post and select "hide all from SuperInterestingCoolFunFacts".

      Turns out that most of my friends only get their daily dose of drivel from a few sites, so after a couple of rounds of that the signal to noise ratio improves considerably.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    11. Re:No news! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Better version of ABP? https://github.com/gorhill/uBl... ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re:No news! by germansausage · · Score: 1

      What kind of icing?

    13. Re:No news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then maybe you shouldn't be using Facebook.

      Which is why I don't. Yes really. I don't use facebook. I have other ways to keep in touch with relatives: Personal visits, phonecalls, even email. Not websites.

    14. Re: No news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A part of his point, I believe. Bieber may have been of Canadian origin, but he's not interesting to them any more.

    15. Re:No news! by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      You forget your place. Your practical solution using a simple menu has absolutely no business being shared amongst the hyperbole here!

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
  5. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    33 percent want more news in their feed.

    And 34 percent are pretty happy the way it is.

  6. And less videos please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't even load properly from facebook. They should stop spamming videos that break every 1 second. The live streams almost never work.

  7. "Feed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Feed" is a very good word describing the Farmer (Facebook) -> Farm-Animal (Facebook-User) relationship.

    1. Re:"Feed" by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I was thinking I only want food to be in my "feed". With the current election cycle the news tends to make me sick to my stomach.

  8. 100% of Slashdot Readers... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...want less Facebook stories in their feed. Work on that for me, Beau, wouldja?

    1. Re:100% of Slashdot Readers... by bigfinger76 · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more. I don't use facebook, and I don't care to be kept abreast with every little thing that goes on at facebook.

    2. Re:100% of Slashdot Readers... by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 1

      In this election year, I would not be surprised to learn that 30% of everyone wants less news in their whatever.

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    3. Re:100% of Slashdot Readers... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      And less facebook in my news. I can't remember my facebook password and don't feel like e-mailing them a copy of my drivers license so facebook is pretty well dead to me.

  9. Define your units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, by "news" do they mean the mostly-inaccurate commercial pap that we call "news", or relevant and interesting events forwarded by their friends and family?

    1. Re:Define your units by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It only refers to the garbage that their site suggests as news. It's usually in a little box of 3x1 thumbnails.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Define your units by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, "news" is their marketing-speak dialect for "content pushed by publishers," aka spam or "promoted content."

      51% of 500-odd people didn't care how much there is. I'm going to guess that not even 15% understood the terminology used; probably over 50% thought they were talking about "important current events" and were neutral on it, because they see value in "news" even though they don't actually read it themselves.

  10. I'd like news in my feed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Or do you mean more of the propaganda and gossip that doubles as news today? Then I can well understand why people want less of that garbage in their feed.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. How about no damn ads??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second item is *always* a fscking ad.

    1. Re:How about no damn ads??? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      I wonder how long their company would last if they didn't collect any advertising revenue?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:How about no damn ads??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying, "Hey Facebook, provide us a free service without making any revenue."

    3. Re: How about no damn ads??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About as long as value is provided. Steal my data and I'll click on the ads... It's a simple arrangement that clearly favors one party. No thanks, fun at first and then obviously a one way beneficial relationship.

    4. Re:How about no damn ads??? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      "Too long. It's already too long."

      He took a small sip of his beer, and nodded several times, very slowly and very softly. I couldn't tell if his look was happiness, sadness, or just resignation. To this day I don't think he knew himself.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re: How about no damn ads??? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      About as long as value is provided. Steal my data and I'll click on the ads... It's a simple arrangement that clearly favors one party. No thanks, fun at first and then obviously a one way beneficial relationship.

      If you're using Facebook, then obviously you're getting SOME value from it. No, it's not a one-way relationship.

  12. I'd prefer if facebook by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    allowed me to configure my newsfeed the way I want it to look, and have it stay that way.

    .
    I'd configure it for no news, and most recent posts first.

    Such a simple request, it amazes me why facebook doesn't allow it.

    As things stand now, I find myself using facebook less and less because it has become annoying to use it.

    1. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a simple request, it amazes me why facebook doesn't allow it.

      Really? Do you also not understand why you can't get free produce at the supermarket?

    2. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by avandesande · · Score: 2

      It's easy. I got rid of 100% of facebook news by deleting my facebook account. Works like a charm!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a simple request, it amazes me why facebook doesn't allow it.

      Why does it amaze you? It's the same reason why that super-cheap toilet paper the store is advertising is in the far back, and why grocery stores have the three most commonly bought things (fresh produce, meat, and dairy) on the outside borders the store. Both of those make people wade through rows of very profitable things to get what they really want. Likewise I'm sure the oodles of advertisements (in various forms) you wade through to see the updates you really want from friends and family are very profitable for Facebook.

      You may be "annoyed" or "disappointed" why Facebook chose to do this... but I don't think you should be "amazed."

    4. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Do you also not understand why you can't get free produce at the supermarket?

      Does facebook understand they need product to sell? If facebook actively and intentionally annoys that product to the point that the product decides not to be a product anymore, how is that good for facebook?

    5. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get free produce at the supermarket. They are called free samples, a form of advertisement. The thing is when discussing free produce, I choose to go to the supermarket and I choose whether to have the free sample or not. Free sample people don't annoy and follow you around in the store. If you are not interested, you just don't make eye contact. Even when you do, they generally just say hello and ask if you would like to try - notice I got a choice of opt in rather than opt out. I'm not obligated to eat the free samples just because I choose to go to the supermarket. I think free sample people know how it works better than Facebook because they actually interact with other human beings directly rather than through a spreadsheet reporting actual revenue vs. goal.

      Facebook offered free samples (opening the store to the public) but now they are following me around insisting I eat the free samples (advertisement) that I don't care for or for all they know am allergic to. Their original (free as in dollars and free as in from ads) offer is not the same as their current offer. Therefore, I do not 'shop' at Facebook.

      Another thing, your analogy isn't quite accurate - Facebook is not the supermarket. Rather, the internet is the supermarket and Facebook is a 10 pack of crappy American cheese singles. Would you buy the crappy American singles if you had to fight the packaging or would you go with a different brand with the same price (free competing with free is no different than 10 cents competing with 10 cents) that is 2 inches away?

    6. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capper items in grocery stores do not actively impede travel until you throw some of the unhealthy, profitable stuff in your cart in your way to the meat section.

      At my grocery store, I can go from produce to meats to dairy and out the door without going down or past any normal isles - produce leads right to meats to dairy and out the door. The sections do ring the store but on the way to dairy, the meats block the profitable stuff the entire way as each section is a self contained room. Self checkout lines also have no impulse buy stuff, magazines or shiny for kids to beg for. This is no super heavy weight player but it is large, has been around forever, has a solid reputation and does a LOT of business without making me wade past anything. There is more than one store design and there is more than one business model.

    7. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      At the supermarket you can buy eggs, or you can buy lemons, or you can buy bread. There are lots of options.

      OP is asking for options in the news feed. All of them supported by advertising, like at present.

      FB has nothing to lose by offering this.

    8. Re:I'd prefer if facebook by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      I've pretty much stopped looking at FB. They won't let me configure it the way I want. As it is now, it wastes too much of my time. I'd use it if they let me just get friends' posts. No news. No suggested stuff, not added content. I'd even watch a properly identified ad if that was the compromise to see only the few other things I want to see.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  13. Don't worry Zuck's got you covered! by CajunArson · · Score: 1, Troll

    33%? That's easy.

    Any story that doesn't call Trump a racist? GONE.

    Any story form what's left that isn't pre-approved by the Hillary campaign? GONE.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  14. get rid of the fake news / ad's that look like n by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    get rid of the fake news / ad's that look like news

  15. yes please. by cmiller173 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I want less "Suggested" posts. I don't mind news that one of my friends shared and thinks is important, I do dislike algorithmicly chosen junk that I might like, because usually it is wrong.

    Really I just use facebook to keep up with long distance family and friends. And really, I don't accept friend requests from all of my family either.

    1. Re:yes please. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Actually, their algorithm doesn't even have to be wrong to be junk. If they successfully posted stuff that I would want to click on, it would still be noise; it would still not be what I was there to read at the time, and if I found myself clicking on it, it would just make me less likely to go there in the first place.

      Pulling in activity that otherwise would have gone to an organic search is nice and all, but it also dilutes their core purpose of connecting humans to other humans.

  16. Facebook wants to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They need to do these things.

    1) Stop fucking with the sort order. Leave it however I set it last.

    2) Stop showing me every single thing that anyone I'm friends with liked. Also, stop sharing every thing I like with everyone on my friends list.

    3) Stop randomly hiding posts from my feed that you don't think I'll find interesting. If I followed a page, I followed it because I want to see their posts.

    4) Don't force me to install your messenger app on my phone to see messages. I only get a handful of messages on there, and refuse to install another messaging app to read them as they come in.

    5) Stop autoplaying videos. And if you go through with your plan to autoplay them with audio like you're testing now, I'm done.

  17. 66% want more...? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I'm part of the majority that wants more news. Most individuals don't have anything interesting or useful to say, so I use Facebook as a personal news aggregator.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:66% want more...? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      I use Facebook as a personal news aggregator

      This may explain why you're unaware that facebook should notbe used as a source of news.

    2. Re:66% want more...? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      I don't doubt that you want more of something, I just doubt that it is news, and that you would know the difference.

      You'd have to actually read the story to find out what percent said they want more. Just from 33% want less, you don't know how many want more. There is no reason to believe that you could simply subtract 33 from 100 to get that number.

      If you read the article, (I don't recommend it, it isn't news and isn't even interesting) you'll find a substantially different number than you supposed. And the one majority you're a part of here is the same one as usual; the majority of people who didn't understand most of it anyways, but they purported to and formed an opinion.

    3. Re:66% want more...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really that much worse than using any for-profit news website? Sure what my friends share has a slant, but since I've got a decent mix of opinions among my friends at least I'm getting a variety of slants and not just choosing a few news sources that conform to my worldview.

  18. far too much clickbait... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  19. in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    99% of slashdot users wanted less facebook news in their slashdot page.

    1. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have options to make that happen. Use them.

      Or are you one of those slackjaws who still has their mother running behind them to wipe their rear?

  20. Mistitled. by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    Why are you naming the small portion? This should be titled "51% of FB users don't give a shit about the amount of news in their feed." And then it should not be posted, because this is a completely uninteresting statistic.

    1. Re:Mistitled. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or phrased another way, less people understood what was meant by the marketing term "news" than actually care one way or the other, whatever it was.

  21. 2/3 are happy or want more by avandesande · · Score: 1

    EOM

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  22. What I take from it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Older users understand how fucked we are while the young are being hopeful in the face of logic... Only a civil war can turn this ship around.

  23. Annoyances by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

    My two biggest complaints about Facebook is that I cannot get my stories ordered by time to be remembered and that it insists on telling me when a friend of mine does something to one of their friends - who, in the majority of cases, I don't know and don't care about.

    News in my feed is pretty low down my list of gripes.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  24. News is SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everywhere I turn I see news. There's a feed on my iPhone. There's a screen in the elevator at work, in the airport, at the bar. The things I want to see cost money. The things I don't care about are pushed onto me. Conclusion, news is SPAM.

    1. Re:News is SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between reality and make believe. Halloween for instance: if a kid dresses up as Superman, does said kid actually gain the ability to fly? Believing you can fly because you 'really are Superman' is fine for a 4 year old. Believing you can fly because you 'really are Superman' is not so good for those old enough to drive, enter into contracts, open lines of credit, vote etc.,...

      News is not SPAM. Rather, SPAM dresses as many 'superheros' for Halloween and 'news' is just one of the costumes.

  25. News here! by McLae · · Score: 1
    I get my news here on /.

    Best news aggregator on the web.

    Even the arrant bullshit is interesting!

  26. And 95% want less political bullshit in their feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like 99% of Slashdot users want 100% less Social Justice Warrior bullshit feminist trolling in their Slashdot story choices.

  27. More cat pictures? by toonces33 · · Score: 1

    If they don't want news, then what do they want? More cat pictures? More pictures of meals about to be consumed? More photoshopped pictures with goofy captions? More pictures of drunks about do something that they wouldn't do sober?

    1. Re:More cat pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me rephrase that for you...

      If they don't want to ride shotgun with a drunk, then what do they want?

      Maybe, on The Internet Super Highway, they would rather drive?

  28. Re:get rid of the fake news / ad's that look like by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    I know this one simple trick to get rid of the fake news. It'll change your life, and you won't believe what happens next.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  29. Re:get rid of the fake news / ad's that look like by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Vote trump

  30. Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook? That site is still around?

  31. What I really really want by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    What I want is Kill Files, as in Usenet/trn4.0

    /Hillary/k

    /Trump/k

    /Clinton/k

    /Kardassian/k

    Just for starters.

    Also, I want to add to the kill file Every. Single. Damn. Web page... that does that click-bait abomination

  32. What they should do is... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    They need to get rid of all those annoying posts from so-called friends too.
    All I want is a continuous stream of pop-over ads.

  33. .. should say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    55% want less facebook in their feeds ....

  34. Pages and Groups by felipesp123 · · Score: 1

    But it does not depend much also of pages and groups that person participates? Let her choose what you want to see or not.

  35. What people consider news.... by Ranbot · · Score: 2

    59% of people don't read the articles they share (which is bad enough by itself), and then a percentage of people like news in their Facebook feeds and/or want more. So, I wonder portion of people consider a reading a catchy headline as the equivalent to reading a full news story? Furthermore, what does it say about the news reading habits of 18-29 year olds [millennials] who are most likely to prefer or want more news in the Facebook feed?

  36. "News" by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    I think if they don't like the news they are already informed.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  37. The reason by Khyber · · Score: 1

    More than half of the 'news' is sponsored ad bullshit, stated or not. It's anything BUT news.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  38. Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Countable and plural, so fewer new's.

  39. News okay - but FB doesn't provide News by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    I guess it comes down to the definition of News. Most of the time FB has "Entertainment Tonight" style news - e.g. what did Lindsay Lohan upto? Britney Spears did it again! Not news by my definition --- so I'd say "give me less news"

    Granted the current election cycle is Entertaining. FB "news" is a lot like grocery store checkout tabloids. All the crap not fit to read.

    Sure I've seen more Washington Post and NY Times sneaking in. Many articles though are...short...and tell nothing more than reading the headline. Then again I can't imagine scrolling through 1,000s of baby pictures from friends and then deeping reading on what makes IS tick.

    But I'm "old."

  40. Here's the only relevant bit by hey! · · Score: 1

    While middle-aged and older Facebook users don't like seeing news in their feeds, those aged 18-29 were much more interested and excited to see even more news articles on Facebook.

    This is the segment marketers and advertisers covet the most. The early years of independent adulthood is when habits that will endure for decades are formed. The party a young person votes for in his first two or three elections becomes the party he will vote for for the rest of his life. If he buys ACME brand rocket roller skates, chances are he'll never buy another brand of rocket roller skates.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  41. Facebook may make Noam Chomsky proud by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

    I didn't expect much when the whole news broke over the liberal slant by Facebook trending. But instead they took a route no one had done before: go neutral by removing the always present human bias. Obviously the biased media was abuzz as the bots first baby steps were stumbles (I won't even touch the Atlantic pushing their dream that Megan Kelly would sue them for libel). But they are scared. This bot is a danger to them. Their golden podiums from up high are in danger.

  42. INFOTAINMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not news anyway. It's manufactured opinion and advertising charading as news.

  43. Let me help you with that... by JoelEmmett · · Score: 1

    "Study: 66% of Facebook Users Want More News In Their Feed." TIFIFY.

  44. Use twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -nt-

  45. Misleading title on a pointless article by spbookie · · Score: 1

    It should read:

    2/3 of Facebook users want the same number or more news articles...

    But that would mean there wasn't a story. Ho Hum.

  46. Improving targeted ads. Bad newsfeed. by Revrface · · Score: 1

    Facebook has immense amount of user data and it has no clue how to use it precisely to its advantage. The targeting of its advertisement is improving but the newsfeed suggestion still suck! Contributor at Digital Quark - Learn Practice Master