Slashdot Mirror


Getting All Your News From Facebook Is Like Eating Only Potato Chips, Flipboard CEO Says (recode.net)

In a wide-ranging interview, Mike McCue, CEO of news curator app Flipboard, talked about how -- and from where -- people get their news nowadays and how it shapes their worldview. From a report: McCue said getting all your news from either friends or algorithms is "challenging and semi-dangerous" because today's social platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, favor content that people engage with, driving "extremist" content to the top. Hence, he argues, the "fake news" epidemic, which McCue believes had an effect on the 2016 election. "Sometimes I think of news feeds as the 'mystery meat' of your information diet," he said. "It's not like you finish reading your Facebook feed, after half an hour, and feel like, 'That was a great use of time!' It's like if you ate potato chips all day long."

139 comments

  1. Incorrect by easyTree · · Score: 2, Informative

    Potatoes have nutritional value.

    1. Re:Incorrect by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Also, I ommitted "fr!5t p50t suckas :P"

    2. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So more like "Getting All Your News From Facebook Is Like Eating Only Cyanide"?

    3. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And CNN has none. It's all fake news.

    4. Re:Incorrect by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Damn straight, add a coke and you have all four important food groups: Fat, sugar, salt and caffeine.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lolz

    6. Re:Incorrect by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Cyanide might have some slight nutritional value.

    7. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all fake news.

      is trademarked by Fox News

    8. Re:Incorrect by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Missing the ethanol food group.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Potatoes have nutritional value."

      And eating only that will kill you certainly, FB alas, not.

    10. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fox News presents more actual news, rather than opinion pieces, than any other network. Think about that.

    11. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News presents more actual news, rather than opinion pieces, than any other network. Think about that.

      Do you mean more news than other network called Fox News?
      Besides, they use this formula where one opinion piece will say "I think ferrets cause brain cancer", and the next thing you know, the "News" shows on Faux are repeating that - "people are talking about the fact that ferrets cause brain cancer"
      Don't forget it was Faux News and the Koch brothers who started the Tea Party,

    12. Re:Incorrect by Kierthos · · Score: 0

      Imagine thousands of gallons of water rushing through a sewer drain. Mixed up in there is animal feces, decaying plant matter, and whatever else is swept up off the street.

      Now, technically, that's more actual water than what is coming out of your kitchen sink tap. But I'm pretty sure that you'd rather drink the tap water than a random sampling of sewer drain water.

      Quantity is not the same as quality.

      Now, clearly, not every bit of news that Fox News puts out is terrible. It's not all sewer water quality. Frankly, I will take Fox News over damn near any celebrity news site (but that is because I largely hate celebrity news sites). But relying _solely_ on Fox News, or on any one news site.... it's not a good idea.

      It's much better to get your news from a wide variety of sources, because then the biases from the various sources can potentially even out. Okay, sure, if they're all conservative sources or all liberal sources, the biases don't even out. No news site is going to be perfect. So let's stop pretending that Fox News is, okay?

      News, all news, has biases. And all news, especially in the last dozen or so years, is far more interested in ratings than news. If news happens to bring in the ratings or the page views, so much the better. It brings to mind an occasion from some years ago, when (at the time) Israel was pounding Palestine like cheap veal. CNN was showing news stories about that. MSNBC was showing news stories about that.

      But when I looked at what Fox News was showing, they had a "human interest" piece about a horse, stuck in the mud, in Texas. And as the top of the hour came along, they said "Here's the top stories" and of course, mentioned the Israel/Palestine news. And then went back to the horse.

      Ratings, not news. That's all that's important to them.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    13. Re:Incorrect by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ethanol = Sugar + time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Incorrect by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Ethanol in the sewers does me no good.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean opinion pieces wrapped in news. There's no Fox News report that doesn't end with the host helpfully explaining what you should think about it, or even pausing in the middle to do so.

    16. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not 2001 anymore. Your Faux News meme is stale. All news is fake, including your precious Leftist Hillary supporting CNN.

      Stop being so partisan. You sound like an useful idiots.

    17. Re:Incorrect by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Mah, those spoiled millennial snowflakes! We drank our booze where we found it, and we were lucky when we didn't go blind!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Incorrect by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've got underwear older than any millennial.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:Incorrect by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "All news is fake, including your precious Leftist Hillary supporting CNN.

      Stop being so partisan. You sound like an useful idiots."

      A completely non-partisan statement if I ever heard one....

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    20. Re:Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN is leftist. CNN did support Hillary Clinton in the last election. These are facts, not partisan opinions.

      Are you pretending otherwise or pleading ignorance?

  2. Where is the like button? by HaaPoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    i cannot find the like button on this story.

  3. Or Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come here and get all your Musk and millennial fake news, like how basic income is the 2nd coming of Christ.

    1. Re:Or Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Mr Musk commented on basic income? I haven't decided how to feel about it yet so I've been waiting for him to tell me. What do you think he is thinking about right now?

    2. Re:Or Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      And also read lots of comments from people who are genuinely stupid enough to be convinced by Trump. IAlthough it could also be lots of propaganda. Trump loves Russia and we all know they do enough of it.

    3. Re:Or Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idk about all that, but I can tell you that you're a fag

    4. Re: Or Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hear thats true

    5. Re:Or Slashdot by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You're the problem..

  4. Curated News? Bullshit. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "News curator app"?

    No.

    News aggregator. And the person doing the work is not a "news curator", he/she is what's known as an "editor" - the thing that people complain Slashdot does not have. Or maybe Slashdot has "story curators", and since they don't exist, stories don't get "curated" at Slashdot...

    The "curator" business is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Curated News? Bullshit. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I wish there were good news curation. It might be a way to get people to pay for news again, but at the very least, it'd be my preferred way of staying up to date. Basically have someone really read a lot of news everyday from all kinds of different sources, and then put together a sort of meta-newpaper of the most important stories of the day.

      Right now, I have a few different news aggregators that just seem to haphazardly pull whatever stories from whatever sources in an automated and somewhat random way. I'd really appreciate someone taking the time to select stories in a coherent way that says, "These are the stories you really should read today in order to get a full picture of what's going on." Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is doing a very good job at that.

    2. Re:Curated News? Bullshit. by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, "necessary", "sufficient", and "useful" are all distinct concepts.

      In the heyday of the print newspaper, editorial functions included a kind of curation: assigning reporters to stories or "beats", and choosing the mix stories that make up the day's edition.

      Clearly, curatorial work is useful -- both in service of the truth and in the service of falsehood. And because it can be used both ways, it is clearly not sufficient for obtaining the truth. However curation (at the very least by you) of your information sources is probably necessary.

      The goal of curating your information sources shouldn't be a capital T Truth, it should be to be informed. That means having enough of the Truth from enough different sources to be able to make better decisions. If you find yourself too much in agreement with the opinions of the news sources you trust, you aren't getting enough information to think for yourself. Nobody who thinks for himself can ever be entirely comfortable with the opinions of others.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Curated News? Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be the Drudge Report.

    4. Re:Curated News? Bullshit. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      >The "curator" business is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

      It's just an extension of trying to make things sound more upscale to justify higher prices.
      Do you make these thingamajigs?
      What? No. We craft this product.

    5. Re:Curated News? Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Slashdot exactly for this. I only read the daily summary /. sends me via email. I'm always a little late to the news, but at least they are more or less important.

  5. Is google as bad as facebook? by XXongo · · Score: 1

    Hmm. I get all my news from news.google.com. I wonder if that's just as bad?

    1. Re:Is google as bad as facebook? by bulled · · Score: 2

      It is, google tailors what stories percolate to the top and what sources it highlights based on what it knows about you. It is the same informational echo chamber as a Facebook feed.

    2. Re:Is google as bad as facebook? by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      So use news.google.com without being logged in and with cookies deleted. Everyone uses the firefox self-destructing cookies plugin right?

    3. Re:Is google as bad as facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you are trolling. Why would it be less bad to read all your news from a world largest advertisement company instead of the second largest?

    4. Re:Is google as bad as facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely Google will not promote the news which ads are coming from Doubleclick?

  6. Yep, "fake news" fed Hillary! voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Fake news" such as "hands up, don't shoot!"

    That kind of fake news.

    1. Re:Yep, "fake news" fed Hillary! voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. physical forensic evidence even proved there was no "hands up don't shoot" moment.

      } Posted AC to prevent wasting mod points above.

    2. Re:Yep, "fake news" fed Hillary! voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About a year before a Presidential election we see some kind of movement suddenly appear which coincidentally makes the Republican candidate look bad: MoveOn.org, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter. Then after the election the movement fades away.

      MoveOn and OWS were known to be funded by George Soros. I haven't seen any connection between him and BLM but it sure looked like a project of his.

  7. Well duh by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    News aggregation (including Flipboard, nice slashvertisemnet) will always show what it thinks people want to see. And as much as people "want" to be challenged when asked, in reality, it's mentally exhausting and they don't. Therefore, all new aggregation will trend towards echo chamber status. The only defense against echo chambers is actively trying to break out, and that's a difficult task.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Well duh by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      I really wish Facebook would tailor what it shows me to match my preferences.

      What I want is actual news, devoid of any sport crap, "celebrity" gossip, and shrieking partisan political screeds right left and/or center.

      I block every sports story of any kind, every "celebrity" gossip story of any kind, and any and all postings of any kind that even mention Trump.

      My Facebook feed is still flooded with all this crap. Where's this "tailoring your feed to match your preferences" thing hiding? I see no sign of it whatsoever.

    2. Re:Well duh by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Plus you can choose to follow any number of news outlets from different countries each with their different spin on things. Your Facebook feed doesn't have to be a monoculture bubble.

      You can see the same stories from different angles.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Well duh by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      Well, sort of. The problem is that facebook (et al) is not a news aggregator, it is an advertising and publicity company paid to keep people on the app and revealing information about themselves that allows them to be put in easily exploited marketing groups. It is a meme-generation machine for rent. Why is it any surprise that the constant attempt to hack people's judgement and social interactions to trick them into wanting the latest crappy crap leads to collateral damage to their social and mental health?

    4. Re:Well duh by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think the best way to get news is to read your local newspaper.

    5. Re:Well duh by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      I really don't want news on Facebook. Any. At all. "This ... is wrong tool. Never use this." I get my news elsewhere, generally starting with news.google.com. (Yeah... When I wrote "What I want is actual news, devoid of any sport crap, "celebrity" gossip, and shrieking partisan political screeds right left and/or center", I meant what I want from a news source, not what I want from news on Facebook, which is "none".)

  8. Am I the only one? by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't have FaceTwit. Are there any others?

    It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.

    But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.

    Are we grown up enough to read through the bias if presented with multiple points of view?

    That remains to be seen.

    Maybe that is like eating more than just potato chips? But I still like chips, even though I don't have FaceTwit.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Am I the only one? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I don't use facebook or twitter either but I'm surprised to see RT on your list of news sources. I like getting news from varied sources myself but I've tried RT for a bit and I just feel like I'm consuming the propaganda branch of the Russian government. When reading it I feel like I might as well be reading a nationalist Chinese news source as well.

      In other words, sure all news sources have some sort of bias but they should at least try to be objective.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Am I the only one? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      No social media use here either... (/. shouldn't count since we're somewhat antisocial.)

      Yes, it's quite possible to view several news sources and form a fairly unbiased opinion of what has actually occurred... the difficulty seems to be the prior belief set trap. It is pretty easy to scroll through multiple sources until you locate one that agrees with a rigidly held worldview.

      Open-mindedness is the constant ability to believe you can be mistaken.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. I've never had a FB account and never plan to. There is no reason to. If I did it would be for the sole purpose of keeping track of extended family. It certainly would not be for news.

      I find it amazing the so many people are stupid enough to get their news from FB. Its sad. Its the biggest 'group think' feeder on could possibly imagine.

    4. Re:Am I the only one? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Are we grown up enough to read through the bias if presented with multiple points of view?

      N = B (n) + A(n) + R (n)
      Solve for n. B, A are R vary depending on n.

      This represents 84% of the total marks.

    5. Re: Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even propoganda tells you things. as for rt its fine but always with russia in a good light and give certain views.

    6. Re:Am I the only one? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.

      But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.

      Well CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are (apart from their biases) pretty light-weight, sensationalized sources of news. (And really, MSNBC and Fox News are the ones that are unapologetically biased).

      BBC is good, Al Jazeera can be good, though I've seen some sesationalized stuff from them as well. RT is just Russia's propaganda network. Utter crap.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    7. Re:Am I the only one? by dagarath · · Score: 1

      I have one, I'd like to use it for keeping track of extended family / friends. But, more and more it's just advertising BS.. i deliberately delete news stories from my feed... the 'social' in media is losing.. it's just becoming another media outlet.

    8. Re:Am I the only one? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      RT is only propaganda. It's not going to burn your eyes. But FoxNews is also propaganda, often factually wrong on matters of fact not opinion. When I see either one I know what I'm looking at. Consider the source. Also consider the questions asked. And the questions NOT asked. American media said not a peep about SOPA until the day big internet sites went dark. When Snowden news broke in 2013, CNN covered it in an extremely one-sided way as if there could be no other point of view. Naturally foreign media took a slightly different view that the NSA was 'merely' spying on 'foreigners' -- where 'foreigners' make up 96 % of the world population.

      "It's all a matter of perspective." -- Delenn, ambassador to Babylon 5, member of the gray - - - er, ooops, nevermind.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    9. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too and I've meet a ton of like minded folks. We created a Facebook group to stay connected with each other. Send me your email address and I'll invite you.

    10. Re:Am I the only one? by Zemran · · Score: 1

      To gain an idea of the truth, it lies between the lies that the two sides tell. You need to read the lies of both sides and think about what lies in between. RT is no worse than CNN it is just the other pole. Al Jazeera used to be good at providing the opinions of both sides until the US government started firing cruise missiles at them and throwing their reporters in Guantanamo. Now even they only tell the US lies. Russia Today is also worth following as is Press TV (Iranian). The problem I have is that I have travelled, lived in many other countries. When they talk about places like Iran I think of my Iranian friends and know that the media lies. The world is full of wonderful people and really corrupt governments. The media encourages us to think of our people and their governments. If you reverse that you end up feeling awful.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    11. Re:Am I the only one? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

      This! 100%.
      When I drove truck FB came into existence. It was a great and convenient way to connect with family and friends for an hour or so before hitting the hay.
      When I had to quit driving it was useful for keeping in touch with friends I had made across the country.
      Now I painfully log in about once every few months just to say "I'm not dead." Most everyone seems to re-post the meme of the week, crackpot conspiracy theories, chain mails and partisan lies in all stripes.
      If I log in, I want to know about YOU, your life, not your political opinions.
      Adblock used to make it bearable, not so much anymore but I'm afraid to see what it might be without it active!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    12. Re:Am I the only one? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't have FaceTwit. Are there any others?

      It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.

      Why are you throwing in the BBC and Al Jazeera with RT. These publications are nothing alike.

      I can only assume you haven't read them.

      But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.

      Now I know you haven't read them.

      Organisations like the BBC and Al Jazeera separate opinion from fact and write factual articles as not to let bias interfere. They present, as best they can, an entirely factual report for which the reader can make their own inferences from. Opinion columns are clearly marked and separated from news and when an error is published, they will issue a correction.

      Fox News on the other hand deliberately confuses opinion with fact so that they can push an agenda and when the facts contradict their agenda, can present fabcrications without making their audience suspicious of the fact they've just been lied to. When lies are exposed, they are never corrected.

      I can only assume you've been subjected to the later for so long you can no longer tell the difference.

      News is verifiable fact.

      Fake news is rumour, inuendo and outright fabrications presented as fact.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Am I the only one? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      CNN is not nearly as bad as RT. I did a search on the RT news sight to see if I could find a single article questioning Russian annexation of Crimea after I posted the above. Not only could I not find one I read through a great piece on whether the Brits views on their actions in Ukraine are based on "misunderstanding or distortion"

      https://www.rt.com/op-edge/268...

      I've never read a piece on CNN as blatently full lies and misdirection. It's well written though, read it without your critical thinking cap on and it "makes sense". Then you realize that "that UN charter doesnt apply to that at all" and "those two things dont equal that at all".

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    14. Re:Am I the only one? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Of course RT isnt going to burn my eyes but it's basically worthless as far as news goes unless you just want to find out what the Russian government wants people to think. Sure you can point to Snowden and other events that were poorly handled by US media but overall they are most certainly willing to question the government on quite a few issues.

      I tried to find even one article on RT's site critical of their actions in Crimea. All I found was lies and misdirection like this https://www.rt.com/op-edge/268...

      Meanwhile, go back a bit and search any major US news media's site for news on our invasion of Iraq. You'll find plenty of stories debunking bad evidence given by the Bush administration. Could they have done a better job pointing out how misguided that war was? Sure, but you cant say they never pointed out many of the lies we were fed in regards to why we should invade.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  9. Monocultures are bad by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could say the same thing about any single news source. My father-in-law gets all his news from the paper version of the wall street journal and whatever nonsense the local evening news is spouting off that day plus a bit of Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say he has a rather narrow and unhealthy world view because he never hears any ideas that contradict what he already believes. Getting your news from a single source or even a narrow group of sources is almost certain to result is a very weird view of how the world should work.

    1. Re: Monocultures are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, he switched to free-free kettle chips w/ olestra.

    2. Re:Monocultures are bad by geek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could say the same thing about any single news source. My father-in-law gets all his news from the paper version of the wall street journal and whatever nonsense the local evening news is spouting off that day plus a bit of Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say he has a rather narrow and unhealthy world view because he never hears any ideas that contradict what he already believes. Getting your news from a single source or even a narrow group of sources is almost certain to result is a very weird view of how the world should work.

      But what if your belief is right and the others are wrong? What do you gain from listening to stupidity? I have no use for CNN for example. I actually liked CNN back in the 90's, they were still a tad bit biased but they at least had some journalistic integrity. Today? None, zero, ziltch.

      I have 4 or 5 news sites bookmarked that I visit on a regular basis. I trust them. I don't always agree with them but I trust they are not intentionally lying to me. Why would I go outside of that?

    3. Re:Monocultures are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not buying it. The problem isn't your father-in-law's choice in entertainment; the problem is that your father-in-law is lazy. It's just plain easier to adopt your opinions from other people than to engage in critical thought.

    4. Re:Monocultures are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You could say the same thing about any single news source. My father-in-law gets all his news from the paper version of the wall street journal and whatever nonsense the local evening news is spouting off that day plus a bit of Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say he has a rather narrow and unhealthy world view because he never hears any ideas that contradict what he already believes. Getting your news from a single source or even a narrow group of sources is almost certain to result is a very weird view of how the world should work.

      I suppose if your view exposure is so much more diverse, then you at least understand the reasoning behind his 'narrow' views. Or maybe you just dismiss them because you aren't so much different.

    5. Re:Monocultures are bad by adolf · · Score: 1

      All of the TV news channels stopped doing news and started being a death-reel on 9/11/2001. And they never recovered because that was also the same time that they universally adopted "the crawler" as an excuse for presenting news on one more than one topic per day. The original programming that came after the horrors died down and ratings faltered followed the path of so many others like (first and foremost) MTV and Discovery and History, with pre-recorded reality TV interspersed with live talking heads speaking their minds instead of telling me about the world today.

      I mean, best case: I like Jay Leno's Garage and Anthony Bourdain's various shows but that's not news. It doesn't belong on a news channel.

    6. Re:Monocultures are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Plus not all bias is bad - as long as you have options and know about the bias. The best example is sports announcers. You can have three degree - Home Team announcer, neutral announcer, Away Team announcer. Nothing inherently wrong with any of these as long as you KNOW you are listening to a biased version of reality.

      Being from the midwest we get a lot of announcers that are hoping our team loses. They announce quite a few "facts" but also spend the entire time talking about either how awesome their team is if they are winning or how easy the comeback might be if they are losing. This is not fun to listen to at all and its not like this "opposing view" somehow helps me understand anything. It is just biased reporting.

      Then there is the neutral announcer. These are rare but it does happen. These guys report facts, give positive and negative hypothetical, etc. but never are they presenting a delusional view of the facts to support their ideal outcome.

      Then you have the announcers cheering for you team. Sometimes they will mention something negative about your team but mostly they will skew the narrative to be optimistic, positive, etc. The exact oppose of the first scenario. This is more enjoyable to listen to because it gives you optimistic looks at how your team might win if they are behind rather than a negative look about how hard it would be to come back. But after the game is over you can't take what the announcer said and act like it was a fact or unbiased.

      Ironically, just like everything else, the people on the coasts don't even know how biased their sports reporting is because they rarely get an outside view. That is a problem because they think the version they hear all the time is the "neutral" version when in reality is is a biased version.

    7. Re:Monocultures are bad by Kergan · · Score: 2

      Then again, why should anyone waste their time reading "news" written by crack pots in the name of, what again?

      Personally speaking I've little interest in reading the sewers that your father is reading (no offense) in the name of trying to comprehend their worldview, beyond an article here and there to get a feel of how below the belt they stand.

      IMO the real issue is the American (and increasingly European) belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, which is all too often understood as meaning that everyone is entitled their own facts, and which purportedly suggest that all opinions (and facts) have merit. They don't.

      In their willingness to avoid confrontation that might hurt another's feeling, or their decision that life's too short for jerks, Americans end up behaving like a toothless, neutered herd. Shrugging instead of calling out crap when you see crap is fine for inane topics at the end of the day. It's not for topics that affect you.

    8. Re:Monocultures are bad by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      The whole single source, multiple source debate misses the point. If you are getting your news from professional outlet(s) your news is coming from the same billionaire no matter how many publications you subscribe to. CNN does have have a different bias and a different angle than HBO, it has the same bias because it is controlled by the same person. There are less than 10 cooperators that together control all news you ever read in a paper, watch on TV, or browse online. And they are not distinguishable. They are not at war, they jointly own many assets and work together.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:Monocultures are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity which news site do you prefer?

  10. Stale potato chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to be precise.

  11. No use for FaceBook personally by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I don't have FaceTwit. Are there any others?

    Plenty. I've never had a FaceBook account (or Twitter) and have no plans to change that. I don't trust the company and it quite plainly has limited utility for me personally. Not judging if you get a lot out of it but it's just not for me. My wife feels the same way. Probably about 2/3 of my family uses FaceBook at least occasionally and about 1/3 of us can't be bothered.

    1. Re:No use for FaceBook personally by Xenographic · · Score: 2

      Same here. I don't have a Facebook and I doubt I ever will.

  12. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    getting all your news from Facebook and Flipboard is like eating potatoe chips and popcorn?

    1. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer my soup with popcorn instead of crackers.

    2. Re:so... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      thats kindof a weird one.. ive never heard of it but now im intrigued and want to try it atleast once lol

  13. I only eat chocolate bars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only eat chocolate-covered protein-filled vitamin-fortified nutrition bars.

    Your analogy is flawed.

  14. Re:Getting All Your News From Slashdot Is Like Eat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subway footlong falafel sub is filling and it makes your shit smell like falafel.

  15. effect on the 2016 election? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Facebook and Twitter are echo chambers, no doubt about that. But did those echos really change anyone's vote? I doubt it. People who liked or disliked one candidate read stories that reinforced their opinion.

    Clinton lost because she was anointed by the DNC rather than being selected by the voters. There was no enthusiasm for her, not in the primaries, not in the general election. I haven't heard of anyone who started out intending to vote for Hillary, then changed their mind after reading Facebook.

    1. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by geek · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Facebook and Twitter are echo chambers, no doubt about that. But did those echos really change anyone's vote? I doubt it.

      They did but not the way people think. I know a large number of people who voted for Trump because the media were so dead set on making him the villain. The media coverage was so over the top that people finally saw through it and said "fuck you." It's only gotten worse since the election too with cooks in CA saying they want to secede from the union and fat chicks with blue hair wearing vagina costumes started marching in DC calling everyone nazi's.

      The more Facebook and Twitter try to claim they are the voice of the people the more the real voices of the people have revolted.

    2. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      People vastly overestimate the power of the DNC (and RNC) in choosing candidates. The DNC sets the rules and schedule, and arranges the debates, but the rules (who has a primary, who has a caucus, etc) were all determined long before either Clinton or Sanders jumped in. People complain that the DNC favored Clinton, but I've yet to see anything that influenced anything even remotely substantial. Again, though, that's missing the greater point.

      What you're missing is this - Money. Money is what allows candidates to run in the primaries. When candidates drop out, it's not because they were doing poorly, so much as that their poor showing led to no more donations (big or small) coming in. You want to know who 'anointed' Clinton? It wasn't Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, it was the collective donors of the Democratic party who weren't looking to back anyone else. There was only one person who got around that, and that was Sanders, by mobilizing large numbers of grassroots donations. Nobody else had the cash to make anything more than a brief showing in the first few debates.

      Oh, and by the way - she was selected by the majority of voters in the primaries. I voted for Sanders, but Hillary still beat him by every real measure, in both votes and delegates.

    3. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are scared of the echo chambers because Trump Supporters/Republicans/Conservatives are less lazy and the echo chambers reminds conservatives to vote and then they actually go vote.

      Also, the echo chambers for conservatives allow us to speak with one another and realize we are not alone, despite the media's attempts to paint conservatives as some sort of tiny, crazy, minority. There are tons of us and we just aren't allowed to speak in public because if a liberal hears us they will start screaming about how we are so terrible.

    4. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a few that has left facebook because it become so one way. Any and view different get called names or told they are raciest and much more.
      Crazy how people have become my view or else. What happened to lest agree to disagree?

    5. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a large number of people who voted for Trump because the media were so dead set on making him the villain. The media coverage was so over the top that people finally saw through it and said "fuck you."

      This is an interesting phenomenon. Your remark about people "seeing through it" make sit pretty clear where your personal opinion lies. But put yourself in the position of reporters. Are you actually claiming that Trump did NOT say, tweet, and do the vast majority of those things that were reported? When has there ever been a campaign so flooded with false statements, misleading spin, and bragging about questionable facts? Events and statements that would have sent traditional campaign into a tailspin of recovery from scandal, were happening on a weekly if not daily basis. As a reporter, would you have ignored it all not to appear biased?

      I am sure you are of the opinion that the media made a lot of this up. Perhaps you can enlighten us with what you think they fabricated? Because what I saw was the rudest and least classy person EVER to run for president get away with it because voters who normally identify as "conservative", value voters", "evangelical" or whatever decided that all that didn't really matter "because emails!!!"

      Am I bitter? Perhaps. Would I prefer that this nation had a president that doesn't act like a 5-year old, and seemingly takes direction from an alcoholic white supremacist? Yes, definitely....

    6. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Hillary still beat him by every real measure, in both votes and delegates.

      Without the super-delegates it would have been a contest with more contestants. It was very clear from the beginning who the party insiders were going to have as their candidate.

    7. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by geek · · Score: 1

      Trump says bad things, Hillary does them. Frankly I've said far worse than Trump ever has. My posting history here probably bares that out and my friends should you ask them would be very upfront in saying our senses of humor would disqualify us from any and all public offices. I'm not going to hold Trump to a different standard. I really don't give a fuck if he offends you. I care if he can do the job and so far he's doing it and is the only politician in about 50 years to actually do the shit he campaigned on. I'll take that all fucking day.

    8. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well clearly the two of you share an impressive command of the English language... I can see how he doesn't offend you, since being foulmouthed and rude seems to appeal to you (I don't get your comment about humor, if you think Trump made jokes during the campaign you are delusional). And if you think Trump is "doing the job" we clearly understand different meanings to that phrase, as all I see is a scared little man totally out of his depth, lashing out at anyone who dares disagree.

    9. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      well i feel it started with my parents generation(im almost 30) and my generation having kids just to have kids. and not disciplining or teaching the children good morals like work ethic and the meaning of an opinion. I dont have kids and honestly dont want to bring a child into a world like this. My fiance wants a child and part of me does also. but i want to make sure they are raised correctly without all the extra bullshit.

    10. Re:effect on the 2016 election? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I wish i hadnt commented on this post. I would have modded this up as insightful. I feel you are correct. I am rather outspoken and dont really care what others think of me. so i let my views be known. but i dont scream in peoples faces or try to get violent over them.

  16. What is Flipboard? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Is that another brand of Potato chip?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re: What is Flipboard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that a failed book of faces clone?

    2. Re: What is Flipboard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some failed Fecesbook clone?

  17. I get all my news from CowboyNeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's good enough for CowboyNeal, it's good enough for me.

    All hail CowboyNeal.

    1. Re:I get all my news from CowboyNeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how CowboyNeal takes off his cowboy hat and plants it on your head while he fucks you doggy style.

  18. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    Flipboard’s solution is to use a mixture of human curation and algorithms to filter stories, what the CEO calls “bionic editors.”

    THAT is different from what FB, Yahoo, Google, and everyone else does? No.

  19. Versus using the Liberal monologue in Flipboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flipboard is worse. The headlines there are so slanted in one direction it's impossible have an informed, balanced point of view solely using Flipboard. Uninstalled.

  20. News curator says other news curator is bad by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    More at 11.

  21. Potato Chips? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Cheetos!

    And 'Flipboard'? Who the hell are they?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Potato Chips? by sirber · · Score: 1

      Cheetos!

      And 'Flipboard'? Who the hell are they?

      The bundeled app you get with a new android phone

      --
      Be or ben't
  22. Potato Chips? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    No, I think it's more like bread myself.

  23. TFTFY by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    "Getting Anything From Facebook Is Like a Raging, Dripping, Burning STD, Flipboard CEO Says"

    TFTFY

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  24. Said the potato chip maker by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    All news aggregators/repackagers have this problem, Flipboard is no different. Their only value to me (was a long term user, dropped them about a year ago) was in repackaging the news into a format more easily consumed on the tablet/phone. Once they started shelling out to the browser for something like half of all articles in the service they became useless and irrelevant. This statement is an example of a dying company trying to prove their relevance.

  25. Some people use the proper tool for the job by Excelcia · · Score: 2

    No. I use RSS feeds into live bookmarks straight to my browser's bookmark toolbar. I have done this for years, it's a wonderful technology you can use with virtually all news sites, and you can then easily pick and choose the articles you want from updated drop down folders on your toolbar.

    For Mozilla or (better yet) PaleMoon browsers you just click on the link above, then on the resultant page click Subscribe Now into Live Bookmarks. I suspect Chrome is similar. This will buy you automatically updated headlines from multiple respected news outlets with different viewpoints in dropdown menus. Why anyone would use Facebook for news is beyond me. If you ask me, anyone who does go to Facebook for news deserves what they get. Facebook is a sewer of trolls initiating social malware for the kick it gives them to see their garbage repeated. Go to news sources for news. Go to facebook to try and make yourself feel better about how well liked you are.

    1. Re:Some people use the proper tool for the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thats a nice list of liberal news outlets.

    2. Re:Some people use the proper tool for the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking at some of the headlines and my eyes nearly rolled out of my head.

    3. Re:Some people use the proper tool for the job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do conservative-leaning outlets not offer RSS feeds ? ... or ... what's your point ? ...

  26. The Source by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

    Says manufacturer of chocolate bars.

  27. Neutral source by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Not that I disagree with his assessment, but Flipboard has a vested interest in consolidating news from multiple sources which means it is in his own best interests to preach this line of thinking. If only as a reminder to think critically we need to remember where his own personal bias comes from.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  28. I just .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... hop over to /pol/ to maintain my objectivity and balance.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  29. WTF? by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who the hell is getting any of their news from Facebook? It doesn't even offer news as a service.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell is getting any of their news from Facebook? It doesn't even offer news as a service.

      Trump supporters.

    2. Re:WTF? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Remember they are not a media/news company? wasn't that about 6 months to a year ago?

    3. Re:WTF? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Who the hell is getting any of their news from Facebook? It doesn't even offer news as a service.

      Maybe you've seen the "Trending" column.

      Although that tends to reference a source, often the source is untrustworthy like Fox News or the Daily Mail.

      However the real problem is fake news, often presented on a blog with little or no supporting evidence, being posted and shared (I.E. going viral).

      Although I consider news from FB to be inherently untrustworthy, I still get some news from there. Mostly about minor interests that my friends have (I.E. gaming, motor industry, so on and so forth).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  30. Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The DNC worked with CNN to get Clinton the debate questions before the debates.
    The DNC strong armed lower ticket races to give all their money to Clinton during the primary. (Borderline FEC fraud, but just within the letter of the law as passed by the DNC congress a few years earlier. But outright fraud if you attempt to look at it in any "fair and reasonable" way.)
    The DNC worked with various news outlets to time bad stories for Sanders that would hurt him in primaries.

    Did you not pay attention at ALL?
    Perhaps you are in a very bad echo chamber and don't even realize it.

  31. Define "News" by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

    The American news system model today is more schoolyard playground gossip than journalism. Perfect for breeding fake news and injecting it into the main news stream through social media, like twitter. Even Fox News has been fooled into broadcasting fake news. Of course, for them it's hard to tell anyway what is truth or lies any idiot should be able to see. O'Really? and InsHannity do such a fine job blending truth and lies that anybody that watches that shit deserves all the fucking their government dishes at 'em.

    A well engineered corporate news system, coupled with corporate television, makes for a perfect combination to manipulate and control a society, like sheep. America is nothing but a big corporate run farm. The farmers are Monsanto and the Grocery Producers of America. Exxon and Dow are ranch hands. Whatever clusterfuck that runs the medical/insurance industry tend the flocks of cows, pigs, goats, and sheep, and keeps them well GMO'd, inoculated, and set to self destruct around retirement age leaving all that free money in the SSA and banking pension systems. Not to mention no old fat pigs laying around drawing medical benefits that the investors deserve more. The best part is all the farm animals get to pay for all bullshit and abuses done to them by their corporate shepards. .

    Invision now a GREAT BIG YYUUUUGGGGGEEEEE wall built on the south border keeping the most prized fat southern cows, pigs, goats and sheep from escaping the pen.
    The Cows, pigs, goats, and sheep will pay for that wall as well, .. through their taxes of course. They won't notice it.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    1. Re:Define "News" by dagarath · · Score: 1

      Very few real journalists in the world today.. we traded them in for blogs and twitter feeds. The classic line, 'a$ did not respond immediately' which means they spent no time researching a story before plopping it out on the world.

    2. Re:Define "News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Very few real journalists in America today" FTFY

      I find the best reporting on American issues in Al Jazerra of all places.

      Reporting by American journalists that don't want to work for American corporate media. What a concept to be truthfully informed.

  32. Shouldn't get your news from ONE source by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    I'm conservative...have been all my life, but, I do not watch Fox News Channel...99% of it is just opinion driven, as is MSNBC, CNN et al. I get my news from various places & websites, INCLUDING some extremely liberal sites. I find some of the best sources for news for where I live, the USA, come from OUTSIDE my country. Some of the Asian, European & Russian sites, along with Australia & Japan, can offer a different opinion/spin/story than inside the USA. I like to form my own opinion, based on my belief system, but I will listen to a different opinion, just to see if there might be something of interest. The problem is, on BOTH sides of the political isle, the "rabid" types want to shut you down, if you differ from them, regardless if it is a left or right issue.

    1. Re:Shouldn't get your news from ONE source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to be honest, I don't even know what "conservative" means anymore. When you say you are conservative, what do you mean? There used to be people who were fiscally conservative, but still recognized the need for a strong an well-functioning government. People who believed in fiscal responsibility, but also knew that legislative and policy decisions need to be made in a pragmatic way where real facts don't trump (yuck) ideology. People who believed in values that may have been guided by their personal faith, but who recognized that imposing that faith upon others is not what freedom is about.

      Am I imagining that this type of conservatism ever existed? Because I sure as hell don't see much of it today. Nowadays conservatives seem to fall either into the camp of "anything, as long as I get richer", or "my religion is the best, so everyone has to follow what I perceive to be moral". It's sad.

    2. Re:Shouldn't get your news from ONE source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that you put the word conservative in quotes. It's a frequent problem we have in society these days.. words have gotten twisted to mean things that don't match the dictionary definition of the word(s). The word "conservative" has become a label, not a description. The word "liberal" has the same issue, it's a label. Think of others - "Affordable Care", "Quality", "Hacker", etc.

  33. and also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    add to that stuff.co.nz ... biased dribble from new zealand

  34. Right as far as he went. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like only eating potato chips, directly out of a dumpster shared by a hospital, a petroleum refinery, and a fissile enrichment facility, and a crack-den, and washing it down with any liquid you can find in that same dumpster...

    ... in a country with no environmental or workplace safety laws, like America in the near future.

  35. Well... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    His entire quote is more accurate, but I'd say it's not like eating only potato chips... it's letting people choose what you eat, whether it's poisonous shit or a nice steak. A tip though, nowadays it's looking more and more like only shit.

    On the other hand, Flipboard is not all that different if you are looking at their curation alone. I'd say it's extremely stupid to follow news on Facebook, but if people are doing it anyways, the important part is not where you get your news from, but whether you check for credibility and look for different sources at least on the stuff you care about. Always consider the possibility of an inaccurate and biased cover, because no matter where you get the news, more often than not it has some sort of agenda there.

    And no, news channels and whatnot are not all that much more trustworthy. It's not uncommon to even traditional news with centuries of history to put crap on the frontpage because their news sources were all the same: agencies. And there have been tons of cases when several traditional news rushed to publish something without verifying things properly.
    All in all, impartiality is a myth, it's impossible to cover a subject without an angle or perspective. So yeah, you always need multiple sources and a good filter. Make a habit to verify sources and flag news portals and blogs that spread fake news, and stop giving them an audience. There isn't any other solution to this, so the faster people learn, the better things will be for everyone.

  36. All news from ANY single source, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    is ALSO like eating potato chips. Heck, getting all your news from your own country's news outlets, even when that news is about your own country, severely limits your 'nutritional balance' among viewpoints and facts presented. Even if paying attention to news sources in other countries only increases the number of echo chambers you tap into, it still adds diversity that would otherwise be missing.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  37. Know your enemy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    But what if your belief is right and the others are wrong?

    That's as often a matter of opinion as it is of fact. And just because you are factually correct doesn't mean others cannot run roughshod over you anyway. Religions are inherently based in beliefs with no basis in reality and yet they often dominate government policy.

    What do you gain from listening to stupidity?

    You learn what others are thinking so it doesn't catch you by surprise. Bad things happen when you underestimate how effective stupidity can be when employed strategically. Dumb people in a large group are dangerous even when they are wrong.

    I have 4 or 5 news sites bookmarked that I visit on a regular basis. I trust them. I don't always agree with them but I trust they are not intentionally lying to me. Why would I go outside of that?

    Because the real world is a lot more complicated than any 5 news sites could possibly pretend to cover. Nobody is asking you to trust everything you hear. But if you just live in an echo chamber then you are going to get it wrong a lot.

    1. Re:Know your enemy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But what if your belief is right and the others are wrong?

      That's as often a matter of opinion as it is of fact.

      Some beliefs are correct, some beliefs are false, and some cannot be proven in either direction. But there are no facts which are a matter of opinion, and a belief is false if it doesn't match the facts. That, of course, doesn't stop people from believing in it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. I call "BS" - FB no different than TV by xantonin · · Score: 1

    Let's compare the TV - it's a medium to get different channels, where some channels feature one news station that can be pretty biased.

    FB is a medium where you subscribe to whichever news outlet you prefer. It's like adding an RSS feed for each news site you like.

    They're pretty similar, they are both full of shit, and they both feature biased content every now and then and allow you to choose what to watch. They both also have paid advertisers showing you what they want to show you. So if anything, both of them are more like eating at a buffet. Sure, you can just grab the delicious chicken tenders and nothing else, or you can make smart choices on what shows up in your feed.

    1. Re:I call "BS" - FB no different than TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FB is a medium where you subscribe to whichever news outlet you prefer.

      I've never seen that feature. Frankly, I suspect you're misrepresenting the facts.

    2. Re:I call "BS" - FB no different than TV by xantonin · · Score: 1

      When you "like" a group that publishes news, you receive their news in your feed.

  39. Idiots use Facebook fullstop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buff said...

  40. Subscribe to a national paper by movdqa · · Score: 1

    It costs money to report the news so subscribe to some national paper so that they can put out and check their news.

  41. More akin to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eating shit from the toilet.

  42. Facts aren't always enough by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Some beliefs are correct, some beliefs are false, and some cannot be proven in either direction. But there are no facts which are a matter of opinion, and a belief is false if it doesn't match the facts. That, of course, doesn't stop people from believing in it.

    That's exactly my point. It doesn't always matter if you are factually correct. Ignorance and stupidity can be weaponized rather easily. Our recent election is a great example of that from any number of angles (pick your favorite) but it's clear that many people mistakenly think facts are actually opinions. You still need to understand what others think even if it makes no sense at all. Stupid, ill-informed people still get to vote and if you don't want them to rule your life you had better be paying attention to what they are doing.

  43. Wait a second.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what he is saying is that potato chips are carcinogenic?