Google, Facebook and fake news

[Pannonian]

It is an imaginary issue that really exists.

People who have a job often already live in a bubble because most jobs surround them with a certain kind of people.
A business consultant probably has different friends than a mailman.
Not to forget that people may not talk about politics in face to face conversation because they fear it could ruin their (likely superficial) friendships just like doing the same on Facebook does. In that case, one could say that Facebook just releases the pressure valves and exposes the hard reality that was previously suppressed but cooking right below the surface.

As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.

Maybe we should cut out the part we call the "lizard brain"? Have drones do it on all of us simultaneously and see what happens.

It's not just a case of being exposed to a limited and self-selecting subset of information. It's also refusing to take in information that contradicts what they want to think. Recently Greyblades posted a video (on Trump IIRC) with all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory: non-mainstream, pulling in disparate elements via a narrator including conclusion, etc. This for him counted as useful information. Contrast with his dismissal of a professional documentary I posted, which follows the rigour that those who deal professionally with information observe, and which experts (politicians and historians) across the spectrum universally recognise as one of the best of its kind. Narrators distant from the sources are trusted as bearers of information because they say what the listener wants to think, but primary sources closest to the events aren't trusted because they don't say what the listener wants to think.

I wonder if Greyblades has taken the trouble to watch The Wilderness Years yet, to see what Jeremy Corbyn has to say about his plans for the Labour party. Third person narrators are trustworthy sources of information apparently, but the future leader describing on camera what he wants to do with the party isn't worth listening to as "It's just a video" (sic).

[Husar]

It's not just a case of being exposed to a limited and self-selecting subset of information. It's also refusing to take in information that contradicts what they want to think.

That's what I meant when I said "The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them.".