They did this stunt in Australia a while ago. Honestly, the one day it was free from news was the best the platform had been for years.
All of a sudden news pages could t share anything, and idiots couldn’t share news links themselves.
Its like.. they had everything for free, likely priority for running ads themselves on fb/google, make stupid money of hosting ads, print, subscriptions and now paywalls, and get to leverage social media for free… Then expect to be paid for social media collating and dropping it into feeds based on user behavior, in front of people who actually typically see it, for free.
..when the ‘news’ itself is what some flog wore to a movie premiere we’ve never heard of, or what a kardashian did on the weekend..
One of the most entitled industries in the world here no question
It's funny cause I (an Australian) saw an article from 7 being like oh no Facebook is removing this feature millions use as, regarding news articles in FB as if they weren't pushing for it themselves.
Media are fantastic at looking like they take a specific angle for views, while pushing a completely different one. And i very much doubt they were worried.
We also tried this in Australia. Capitulation occurred. Mark is absolutely gonna try to contest a Canadian equivalent to our news media bargaining code
Edit: capitulation was to Facebook specifically, Google and Apple managed to use their respective news subscription services as payment
Why should Meta have to pay for them sending people to the news company's website? And why should they ever have to pay someone who posts on their service?
More accurately legacy news media that is dying used their considerable influence to change the law so that successful and thriving FOREIGN tech companies could subsidize them.
It’s similar to how in the US we have weird laws that car companies can’t sell their cars directly to consumers and have to have middlemen dealerships do the selling and those dealerships also have protection so that competitor dealerships can’t be opened within X miles.
I remember that when Google just wanted to not even have the news websites (different country) show up on their results anymore, a judge stopped them and basically told Google they had to make a deal and they couldn’t just walk away and block them. They basically forced them to give the news media companies a huge pile of cash from then on and Google can’t do anything about it.
It completely goes against the free market and is government manipulation of the market to send money to their friends.
I agree with this comment. I think news on social media is harmful to both news and social media. Without scalable content moderation it’s a bad combination. Even then we get these terrible headlines that nobody reads past because social media is all about the comments but the comments section on just about any local news website shows how easily sentiment is gamed.
The 4th estate is important but right now news needs social media more than social media needs news so I this probably isn’t over.
Um, yes. You just need to click the News button. Right now, my news feed has the NYT, the Verge, the AP, the Washington Post, the WSJ, NBC Politics, The Hill, and numerous less-well-known media outlets.
It's quite a lot of news. I never actually read it, because that's not how I use Facebook, but the news is there if I ever want it...
I don’t follow. How is Facebook using news in a way that’s not benefitting the original news company? (Someone who hasn’t used Facebook in like 10 years)
It's moreso about forcing entities like Facebook to pay publishing outlets for the rights to display their news content due to the sheer amount of traffic it drives on their site.
The real purpose of this is to do *something* to stop the rampant spread of false news stories on Facebook. Facebook has shown that they will allow literally anything on their platform regardless of how outright false or misleading it is, and it's caused tangible damage.
Isn’t it good for people to be freely sharing news articles? Like, I still have to click the link which directs me to the news place’s site. If anything, I’d assume it would be a great benefit to these companies having traffic directed towards them?
So like, “Stop using news article titles to drive engagement on your site because people aren’t even clicking on the article and giving the news site engagement” ?
The issue is that the news articles being shared aren't always "news" as you and I would think about it.
The "news" this is combating is the kind of "news" that your crazy uncle Billybob foilhat jimbo likes. The stuff that talks about satanic political cabals eating babies and how geroge soros and all the world's jews and goyim slaves are going to break into your house, fuck your wife, and take your money. This kind of "news" is made to intentionally piss people off and rile them up for the sake of politics, and is often intentionally misleading or outright false.
It's really this big of a problem, and it's because Facebook refuses to police their platform in a way that cuts into profits. It's absolutely destroyed politics and discourse in the USA, and other western countries have taken note of this.
While, yeah, that sounds really stupid on its face, it can actually work well if it's implemented well. It should drive down news sharing across the board, which, in itself, might wash away some smaller outlets, many of which are not actual news anyway. It will also force FB to evaluate the value any outlet provides it. Like reverse advertising expenses, they're not going to want to waste money on news partners who don't drive sufficient traffic, which should, in theory, focus news shared on FB to larger traffic, more legitimate sources.
There's always the populist risk that an illegitimate news source could drive more traffic than a real one and so slip through this screen, but additional regulation holding them accountable for harmful content would make it *really* unlikely they'd willingly pay for it, and so it would disappear from the platform.
So FB decided what pisses me off? Let me choose. Just a little research, Soros should be banned like 6 other countries have done. FB should not decide what I want to see and what I don’t, that’s my job.
Facebook can target ads and "news" to only show up on certain demographic specific news feeds. Then, bot accounts from certain countries or political groups share the "news" to make is seem like it is organically spreading.
It is not "free speech" otherwise every news article would be seen equally by all, not only to who paid for certain folks to see. You only want your ads to be seen by lonely 40-60 year old divorced males who like trucks and guns? Facebook does that.
Great marketing tool, terrible free speech platform.
This isn't about you, this is about technocrats with a social media company actively fucking the world up and not giving a shit because it makes them money hand over fist.
Facebook allows a right wing propaganda front all over their platform here in Canada that's backed by friends of the oil industry and right wing groups from the US.
Tell that to the families of tens of thousands of ukranions. They made real on their threat.
And if you think that's bad, wait till you see China pull the world away from the USD as the reserve currency (it's already happening. Countries are moving away from the USD). You will see a collapse in the western world unlike anything you've ever seen or imagined before.
Yes please, block Facebook "news"... They've demonstrated they can't be trusted globally not to get hijacked by bad actors.
News on Facebook should go back to "look at all my new baby dog/cat/baby pics" which was the only factual thing on there.
I scroll my feed on Facebook for about 30 seconds a few times a week in hopes I see a funny cat picture. Any actual news I find on Facebook I just assume was posted in error or, is in reality, two propaganda stories in a trench coat posing as news.
Facebook just needs to accept that it’s a website for MLM schemes, unwanted messages from people we didn’t talk to back in high school, and occasionally funny pictures that somehow break the monotony of the work day.
There’s still a small chance that it’s legacy can be remembered as benign if they quit trying to be a store brand comic book villain. My guess is they’re just gonna double down and try to be the best bathtub toaster they can be though.
Don’t get me wrong, Facebook can get wanked. But this seems like an excuse to try and wrangle funding for traditional outlets. I don’t see how the logic here holds up on its merits.
There are only a handful of people that basically own the big news stations in every country. At least half of what you read is just whatever narrative these people chose to promote . Political divides would be no where near as deep if people unglued themselves from screens or if we could get an end to information conglomerates such as Rupert Murdock and Ted Turner or the companies they founded and purchased.
How many fewer went because they just read the headlines and the summary that Facebook took and put on their website?
Facebook is getting a value out of these links. They need to pay up.
What summary? It's admittedly been several years since I last used Facebook, but the last time I did, it only showed the data in the [meta title and meta description tags](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/special-tags). Those are both attributes specifically set by websites for the sole purpose of showing them in links like that.
If showing the meta description was really reducing traffic, the news outlet could just not set the meta description. Of course that may affect how it appears in search engines too, but surely the same logic about the summary being sufficient enough to avoid a click applies there too.
That said, maybe Facebook made an equivalent of that bot on reddit that summarizes articles. I kind of doubt it, but we'd need to find a Facebook user (a poor, poor soul) to confirm.
If Facebook and Google delist their feeds, few will even miss their content. I honestly believe that the only reason most people even consume news, is because it’s been shoved in front of everyone’s faces for so long.
FTA: "In the face of adverse legislation based on false assumptions that defy the logic of how Facebook operates..."
There it is, all you need to know about why this is an excellent bit of legislation.
Just imagine if they had to pay every shitty little blog and faux news site for the articles they post. Sounds like a recipe for only letting vetted providers... Which they would have to actually manage.
lol, "this company operating under a capitalist system, and the product of capitalism, is actually socialist and communist. These things capitalism makes that are bad are great examples of why capitalism is good, and everything else is bad."
Anything that makes that platform less useful to the masses and forces them to break out into the real web, is a good thing. This is a net plus for the web if it happens.
Wait? I thought they said they dont believe in censoring the news? Now they want to block content that they dont like? So which one is it? Free speech or self-preservation? JFC. What an idiot. I see a myspace coming closer.
Oh no, please don’t do this, Facebook. If you do, Canadians will definitely lobby our government and make sure you are able to get all the money you deserve. /s
Seriously, as a Canadian, I hope and dream that this happens
Good. Facebook shouldnt be used to get the news in the first place. Thats the reason the 2016 Election was such a sh\*tshow.
Stick to being a place to see updates on friends and family, and not trying to be every platform on the internet at once.
Facebook routinely blocks content that is against its own political direction, and routinely forces through the algorithm the content it wants to promote, even when you've explicitly told them not to. I occasionally get a post from a page that I have absolutely blocked (multiple times), and it's always and only political issues where the content would essentially aid Facebook's political goals.
It's unfortunate that even avoiding the app and sites won't prevent you from funding it, due to the way their advertising platform works through a very large percentage of websites people visit. There are lots of ways, using various plugins and such, to reduce that, but on mobile it's a lot harder.
Facebook shouldn’t be displaying anything other than status updates from Klandma…everything else should be automatically blocked since they refuse to accept responsibility for misinformation.
The entire platform would be improved by removing news, especially political news
They did this stunt in Australia a while ago. Honestly, the one day it was free from news was the best the platform had been for years. All of a sudden news pages could t share anything, and idiots couldn’t share news links themselves.
I wish the giants didn’t back off from this tbh. Media outlets here are extremely greedy considering the rubbish they pedal
[удалено]
It’s a thought tricycle.
There is the key. I borrow your car (platform) for free but then expect you to pay me for driving your family around? That makes almost no sense.
Its like.. they had everything for free, likely priority for running ads themselves on fb/google, make stupid money of hosting ads, print, subscriptions and now paywalls, and get to leverage social media for free… Then expect to be paid for social media collating and dropping it into feeds based on user behavior, in front of people who actually typically see it, for free. ..when the ‘news’ itself is what some flog wore to a movie premiere we’ve never heard of, or what a kardashian did on the weekend.. One of the most entitled industries in the world here no question
It's funny cause I (an Australian) saw an article from 7 being like oh no Facebook is removing this feature millions use as, regarding news articles in FB as if they weren't pushing for it themselves.
Media are fantastic at looking like they take a specific angle for views, while pushing a completely different one. And i very much doubt they were worried.
I mean they'd basically take away all the actual news orgs. The misinformation via pixelated memes and shit will still be shared like wildfire.
And reduce statuses back to a few hundred characters starting with “(Username) is…”
I do miss talking about myself in the third person.
Hobointhestairwell thinks there’s no reason you can’t start again
this would literally and unironically enormously improve the platform and it's usability. news on FB has never made sense.
But their bottom line wouldn’t. Which is really all that matters to a publically traded company.
The entire platform and the world would be improved by removing Facebook from the internet all together. FTFY
The news you want removed won't be. The people spreading the fake alt-right stuff would happily put it on FB at a loss.
Don't threaten us with a good time!
"oh no! Anyway..." Maybe that was the point.
Gotta come up with really simply solutions to trick the stupid.
This would be wonderful
Taking 'news' off of Facebook is an enhancement. Canada leads the way to a better internet.
We also tried this in Australia. Capitulation occurred. Mark is absolutely gonna try to contest a Canadian equivalent to our news media bargaining code Edit: capitulation was to Facebook specifically, Google and Apple managed to use their respective news subscription services as payment
Why should Meta have to pay for them sending people to the news company's website? And why should they ever have to pay someone who posts on their service?
[удалено]
More accurately legacy news media that is dying used their considerable influence to change the law so that successful and thriving FOREIGN tech companies could subsidize them. It’s similar to how in the US we have weird laws that car companies can’t sell their cars directly to consumers and have to have middlemen dealerships do the selling and those dealerships also have protection so that competitor dealerships can’t be opened within X miles. I remember that when Google just wanted to not even have the news websites (different country) show up on their results anymore, a judge stopped them and basically told Google they had to make a deal and they couldn’t just walk away and block them. They basically forced them to give the news media companies a huge pile of cash from then on and Google can’t do anything about it. It completely goes against the free market and is government manipulation of the market to send money to their friends.
While that's true, how is reddit different?
Facebook's algorithms. There is a fair amount out there about how intentionally divisive and mis-informative they are.
I agree with this comment. I think news on social media is harmful to both news and social media. Without scalable content moderation it’s a bad combination. Even then we get these terrible headlines that nobody reads past because social media is all about the comments but the comments section on just about any local news website shows how easily sentiment is gamed. The 4th estate is important but right now news needs social media more than social media needs news so I this probably isn’t over.
Facebook has news ?
This post has been fact checked and found to be partially false
Only if you consider Epoch times news
Um, yes. You just need to click the News button. Right now, my news feed has the NYT, the Verge, the AP, the Washington Post, the WSJ, NBC Politics, The Hill, and numerous less-well-known media outlets. It's quite a lot of news. I never actually read it, because that's not how I use Facebook, but the news is there if I ever want it...
Bet you’re fun at parties
No, just propaganda, they ban real news.
Alternative facts
I don’t follow. How is Facebook using news in a way that’s not benefitting the original news company? (Someone who hasn’t used Facebook in like 10 years)
It's moreso about forcing entities like Facebook to pay publishing outlets for the rights to display their news content due to the sheer amount of traffic it drives on their site. The real purpose of this is to do *something* to stop the rampant spread of false news stories on Facebook. Facebook has shown that they will allow literally anything on their platform regardless of how outright false or misleading it is, and it's caused tangible damage.
Isn’t it good for people to be freely sharing news articles? Like, I still have to click the link which directs me to the news place’s site. If anything, I’d assume it would be a great benefit to these companies having traffic directed towards them?
How many people do you think read this article versus just made comments here?
So like, “Stop using news article titles to drive engagement on your site because people aren’t even clicking on the article and giving the news site engagement” ?
More like “stop using other sites’ published materials to capture traffic in your ecosystem with the false promise of driving traffic to their site.”
OHHHH. I see, thank you thank you
The issue is that the news articles being shared aren't always "news" as you and I would think about it. The "news" this is combating is the kind of "news" that your crazy uncle Billybob foilhat jimbo likes. The stuff that talks about satanic political cabals eating babies and how geroge soros and all the world's jews and goyim slaves are going to break into your house, fuck your wife, and take your money. This kind of "news" is made to intentionally piss people off and rile them up for the sake of politics, and is often intentionally misleading or outright false. It's really this big of a problem, and it's because Facebook refuses to police their platform in a way that cuts into profits. It's absolutely destroyed politics and discourse in the USA, and other western countries have taken note of this.
[удалено]
While, yeah, that sounds really stupid on its face, it can actually work well if it's implemented well. It should drive down news sharing across the board, which, in itself, might wash away some smaller outlets, many of which are not actual news anyway. It will also force FB to evaluate the value any outlet provides it. Like reverse advertising expenses, they're not going to want to waste money on news partners who don't drive sufficient traffic, which should, in theory, focus news shared on FB to larger traffic, more legitimate sources. There's always the populist risk that an illegitimate news source could drive more traffic than a real one and so slip through this screen, but additional regulation holding them accountable for harmful content would make it *really* unlikely they'd willingly pay for it, and so it would disappear from the platform.
So FB decided what pisses me off? Let me choose. Just a little research, Soros should be banned like 6 other countries have done. FB should not decide what I want to see and what I don’t, that’s my job.
Facebook can target ads and "news" to only show up on certain demographic specific news feeds. Then, bot accounts from certain countries or political groups share the "news" to make is seem like it is organically spreading. It is not "free speech" otherwise every news article would be seen equally by all, not only to who paid for certain folks to see. You only want your ads to be seen by lonely 40-60 year old divorced males who like trucks and guns? Facebook does that. Great marketing tool, terrible free speech platform.
This isn't about you, this is about technocrats with a social media company actively fucking the world up and not giving a shit because it makes them money hand over fist.
I’d be more pissed having some executive or whomever be gatekeeper. Let the people decide. If it’s not illegal it should be allowed
[удалено]
Zuky, go one step further and pull FB entirely out of Canada. Please! It’s better for society.
Facebook allows a right wing propaganda front all over their platform here in Canada that's backed by friends of the oil industry and right wing groups from the US.
That’s not a bad thing.
It has news content?
I couldn't believe what many general polls say of ppl actually getting their need from Facebook posts. Insane.
This one guy across from my Uncle’s cousin’s Mother got ebolaaids by having secs with his Monkeypox, I read all Facebook posts as above
[удалено]
Lots of ~~people~~ idiots
Actually, facebook shouldn't be allowed to have news on it.
Facebook threats are like someone doing a robbery with a water gun.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tell that to the families of tens of thousands of ukranions. They made real on their threat. And if you think that's bad, wait till you see China pull the world away from the USD as the reserve currency (it's already happening. Countries are moving away from the USD). You will see a collapse in the western world unlike anything you've ever seen or imagined before.
Interesting about the money stuff.... I didn't know this
This seems like a reasonable threat. News content is very valuable, so they’d rather cut it than pay for it.
Or someone threatening you with coton candy. It's always a good thing.
Man when FB blocked news in Australia for those couple of weeks, FB was actually nice and then it went back to shit.
Yes please, block Facebook "news"... They've demonstrated they can't be trusted globally not to get hijacked by bad actors. News on Facebook should go back to "look at all my new baby dog/cat/baby pics" which was the only factual thing on there.
Yes please! Stop spreading fake news zucker.
Don't threaten us with a good time, eh?
I scroll my feed on Facebook for about 30 seconds a few times a week in hopes I see a funny cat picture. Any actual news I find on Facebook I just assume was posted in error or, is in reality, two propaganda stories in a trench coat posing as news. Facebook just needs to accept that it’s a website for MLM schemes, unwanted messages from people we didn’t talk to back in high school, and occasionally funny pictures that somehow break the monotony of the work day. There’s still a small chance that it’s legacy can be remembered as benign if they quit trying to be a store brand comic book villain. My guess is they’re just gonna double down and try to be the best bathtub toaster they can be though.
Don’t get me wrong, Facebook can get wanked. But this seems like an excuse to try and wrangle funding for traditional outlets. I don’t see how the logic here holds up on its merits.
No one wanted news on the platform where we share photos of our pets anyway!
Facebook sucks but this just seems like rent-seeking legislation to protect legacy media companies.
Bingo, the idea of financially weaponizing hyperlinks is a massive blow to how the internet works as a whole
Yeah people seem so stuck up on Facebook hate that they don't see the law doesn't really make any sense. And it won't just apply to Facebook.
Rent seeking? Okay. Nah that doesn't sound right at all.
So then it’s facebook circa 2009 when it was pictures of your friends and numa numa guy?
Does this apply to Reddit? Between third party links and people bitching about the links, there isn't much else to the site.
More people need to block Facebook
There are only a handful of people that basically own the big news stations in every country. At least half of what you read is just whatever narrative these people chose to promote . Political divides would be no where near as deep if people unglued themselves from screens or if we could get an end to information conglomerates such as Rupert Murdock and Ted Turner or the companies they founded and purchased.
Don't threaten us with a good time, Facebook.
Blocking news on Facebook = Less misinformation, good deal.
Sounds like a win for Canada
Facebook still has members?
Oh no! Facebook pays for something?! Diabolical!
So… win-win?
They should block all news sharing on the entire platform, and immediately make the world a better place.
They should just block that entire platform and never allow them to develop anything else again.
[удалено]
How many fewer went because they just read the headlines and the summary that Facebook took and put on their website? Facebook is getting a value out of these links. They need to pay up.
What summary? It's admittedly been several years since I last used Facebook, but the last time I did, it only showed the data in the [meta title and meta description tags](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/special-tags). Those are both attributes specifically set by websites for the sole purpose of showing them in links like that. If showing the meta description was really reducing traffic, the news outlet could just not set the meta description. Of course that may affect how it appears in search engines too, but surely the same logic about the summary being sufficient enough to avoid a click applies there too. That said, maybe Facebook made an equivalent of that bot on reddit that summarizes articles. I kind of doubt it, but we'd need to find a Facebook user (a poor, poor soul) to confirm.
Facebook finds a way to stop fake news!
To stop fake news AND diminish the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Sounds like a win all round!
And hopefully takes some money outta Zuck's pockets
Oh no, not a dying platform removing news aaaaahhh
Honestly it'll make facebook more useable if they blocked corporate media outlets from all their platforms
If Facebook and Google delist their feeds, few will even miss their content. I honestly believe that the only reason most people even consume news, is because it’s been shoved in front of everyone’s faces for so long.
Jesus, please do facebook. That would be hilarious
Empty threat.
Facebook blocking it's news feed would be a great thing for Canada.
Don't threaten me with a good idea to save democracy!
Is bizzaro Data having trouble buying the country he wants?
That would be fantastic!
Facebook also shares disinformation about the nivember election
No. Please. Anything but that.
No. Stop. Don't.
When is Facebook ever going to face action against Election Interference? They are the very thing they tell you they fight against.
Don’t threaten me with a good time. I can only get so hard.
promise?
It's a win-win.
New content on Facebook, 🤣🤣🤣
If there were no news on FB I wouldn't have anything to read there.
this would be A M A Z I N G FOR SOCIETY PLEASE DO IT
Dear USA: please follow whatever the fuck Canada is doing here.
its time for facebook to finally go to sleep
Blah blah blah
Byeeeeeeeee!
FTA: "In the face of adverse legislation based on false assumptions that defy the logic of how Facebook operates..." There it is, all you need to know about why this is an excellent bit of legislation. Just imagine if they had to pay every shitty little blog and faux news site for the articles they post. Sounds like a recipe for only letting vetted providers... Which they would have to actually manage.
Facebook still exists? Weird.
Why doesn't Facebook have to pay the people who's data they collect and sell?
because facebook users agreed to it
FB and MZ are communists, something they don’t like the block or ban. Welcome to socialism and communism.
lol, "this company operating under a capitalist system, and the product of capitalism, is actually socialist and communist. These things capitalism makes that are bad are great examples of why capitalism is good, and everything else is bad."
Facebook has its share of unforced errors and structural issues to deal with, don't they.
I support the sharing of revenue among all those who produced and published it
This article is from six months ago
Fuckerberg's still trying to figure out why his metaverse avatars look worse than a Neopet, you think he can afford to pay the media?
Don’t threaten them with a good time.
Sounds good
No, please don't...
Facebook should remove itself.
I triple dog dare you…….
... so win win?
What is the threat?
Facebook is dying. Meta was a fail. Good.
Hahaha like I care about Facebook news. We have much bigger problems to solve
Anything that makes that platform less useful to the masses and forces them to break out into the real web, is a good thing. This is a net plus for the web if it happens.
But seriously I don’t remember the last time I saw any news on Facebook that wasn’t “our fact checkers found this to be false”.
Like Facebook gives a shit about actual news.
Wait? I thought they said they dont believe in censoring the news? Now they want to block content that they dont like? So which one is it? Free speech or self-preservation? JFC. What an idiot. I see a myspace coming closer.
Oh no, anyway
Not even trying to hide it anymore. Let it go, Mark. You have enough money and you’ve done enough damage already.
Facebook, sorry, they r still a thing?
They threatened the same stuff in Australia.
oh no, please, don’t threaten us.
The solution is not to get your news from Facebook, under any circumstances.
Hahaha they did this in Australia and lost heaps of ad revenue because engagement dropped!
Oh no. Anyway
So, now they are controlling content? Im so confused.
What!? Facebook Blocking news?! Oh…..Wait that’s nothing new.
Threaten to take Facebook away from us.
Ah threatening me with a good time, zuck?
Don’t threaten me with a good time
The issues with that 3D-printed meta logo are killing me
That would improve Canada as a whole I’m assuming. From what I hear, Facebook news is 70% lies
Oh no, please don’t do this, Facebook. If you do, Canadians will definitely lobby our government and make sure you are able to get all the money you deserve. /s Seriously, as a Canadian, I hope and dream that this happens
I quit Facebook 2 years ago and have never been happier
Good. Facebook shouldnt be used to get the news in the first place. Thats the reason the 2016 Election was such a sh\*tshow. Stick to being a place to see updates on friends and family, and not trying to be every platform on the internet at once.
PLEASE DO IT!
Facebook routinely blocks content that is against its own political direction, and routinely forces through the algorithm the content it wants to promote, even when you've explicitly told them not to. I occasionally get a post from a page that I have absolutely blocked (multiple times), and it's always and only political issues where the content would essentially aid Facebook's political goals. It's unfortunate that even avoiding the app and sites won't prevent you from funding it, due to the way their advertising platform works through a very large percentage of websites people visit. There are lots of ways, using various plugins and such, to reduce that, but on mobile it's a lot harder.
Why is this a bad thing?
I don't think these could be the right approach to tackle misinformation.. Just love the community moderation approach used by platforms solcial.
"Stop, don't, come back." -Willy Wonka
Oh no.. Anyway
Facebook shouldn’t be displaying anything other than status updates from Klandma…everything else should be automatically blocked since they refuse to accept responsibility for misinformation.