This is too much for me to say, I'm so happy like I got the best gift for this year, all thanks to spiritual Monday my husband is back to me after 3years of separation because of a mistake I made which I regretted , this was my wish for the new year you don't know how it feels to celebrate a new year with your lover. If you are feeling down or you also need your lover to be with you this new year you can contact https://www.instagram.com/spiritual__monday?igsh=eTE2ZnYyZW11YXhn&utm_source=qr at his Instagram page he also does cleansing, protection e.t.c.
I don't think it's quite right to say that Facebook downranks politics. Rather, it deprecates some engagement signals (e.g. comments, shares), with the idea being that good political content shouldn't be entertainment (e.g. things that solicit engagement). That has the effect of less political content and encouraging less political discussions. But I think it's the right thing to do, since we "politics as entertainment" has known problems for society, individual experience and I'm not sure people learn much from a lot of it.
If you were in charge of FB, would you have launched the deprecation of comment/share models for political content? Why or why not?
Interesting question. I want to think on it more because I do think politics is engagement. It's a dialogue between voters and those that want to represent them. There's a case before the Supreme Court now on if government officials should be able to ban anyone from engaging on their social media accounts and if that violates the First Amendment.
Now it's a fine and very blurred line between that and entertainment. Or going so negative so as to elicit a response of engagement to chase clicks and attention. In many ways, I wish I could go back in time to the early 2000s and change what metrics we gave people and how we defined those as successful.
also worth noting that there are different kinds of engagement signals. You can comment on something that you hate, but you're unlikely to "like" something that you hate. So one option is to remove the ambiguous engagement signals (e.g. comments, time spent, shares) in favor of engagement that is more explicitly positive.
When you post a well-known, famous comic like the one in this article, you should post the original source, which is easily discoverable with a standard search. The source comic is here:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
This means that you are free to copy and reuse any of my drawings (noncommercially) as long as you tell people where they're from.
That is, you don't need my permission to post these pictures on your website (and hotlinking with <img> is fine); just include a link back to this page. Or you can make Livejournal icons from them, but -- if possible -- put xkcd.com in the comment field. You can use them freely (with some kind of link) in not-for-profit publications, and I'm also okay with people reprinting occasional comics (with clear attribution) in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, and presentations. If you're not sure whether your use is noncommercial, feel free to email me and ask (if you're not sure, it's probably okay).
Oh so much to say and digest here, but for now I’ll say thank you for this. What a much needed discussion.
It’s almost like discussions of politics online is considered too dangerous territory, but if we’re going to be living online as we currently are, we need to be able to discuss politics and have forums catered for us to do so.
Perhaps it’s a battle between what’s popular and makes money vs utilising technological tools. Do these online social media platforms just care about data and making money, or do they have concern for being a place for discourse?
This is too much for me to say, I'm so happy like I got the best gift for this year, all thanks to spiritual Monday my husband is back to me after 3years of separation because of a mistake I made which I regretted , this was my wish for the new year you don't know how it feels to celebrate a new year with your lover. If you are feeling down or you also need your lover to be with you this new year you can contact https://www.instagram.com/spiritual__monday?igsh=eTE2ZnYyZW11YXhn&utm_source=qr at his Instagram page he also does cleansing, protection e.t.c.
👇🏽👇🏽👇🏽
https://www.instagram.com/spiritual__monday?igsh=eTE2ZnYyZW11YXhn&utm_source=qr
Keep pushing. Your work is important and I was grateful to work with you and thankful to read of your efforts now.
I don't think it's quite right to say that Facebook downranks politics. Rather, it deprecates some engagement signals (e.g. comments, shares), with the idea being that good political content shouldn't be entertainment (e.g. things that solicit engagement). That has the effect of less political content and encouraging less political discussions. But I think it's the right thing to do, since we "politics as entertainment" has known problems for society, individual experience and I'm not sure people learn much from a lot of it.
If you were in charge of FB, would you have launched the deprecation of comment/share models for political content? Why or why not?
Interesting question. I want to think on it more because I do think politics is engagement. It's a dialogue between voters and those that want to represent them. There's a case before the Supreme Court now on if government officials should be able to ban anyone from engaging on their social media accounts and if that violates the First Amendment.
Now it's a fine and very blurred line between that and entertainment. Or going so negative so as to elicit a response of engagement to chase clicks and attention. In many ways, I wish I could go back in time to the early 2000s and change what metrics we gave people and how we defined those as successful.
More to come...
also worth noting that there are different kinds of engagement signals. You can comment on something that you hate, but you're unlikely to "like" something that you hate. So one option is to remove the ambiguous engagement signals (e.g. comments, time spent, shares) in favor of engagement that is more explicitly positive.
When you post a well-known, famous comic like the one in this article, you should post the original source, which is easily discoverable with a standard search. The source comic is here:
Someone is wrong on the internet
https://xkcd.com/386/
This is the license:
********
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
This means that you are free to copy and reuse any of my drawings (noncommercially) as long as you tell people where they're from.
That is, you don't need my permission to post these pictures on your website (and hotlinking with <img> is fine); just include a link back to this page. Or you can make Livejournal icons from them, but -- if possible -- put xkcd.com in the comment field. You can use them freely (with some kind of link) in not-for-profit publications, and I'm also okay with people reprinting occasional comics (with clear attribution) in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, and presentations. If you're not sure whether your use is noncommercial, feel free to email me and ask (if you're not sure, it's probably okay).
********
You are 100% correct. I should have done this and was an unintentional oversight. I’ll fix it on the newsletter. Thank you for pointing it out.
Oh so much to say and digest here, but for now I’ll say thank you for this. What a much needed discussion.
It’s almost like discussions of politics online is considered too dangerous territory, but if we’re going to be living online as we currently are, we need to be able to discuss politics and have forums catered for us to do so.
Perhaps it’s a battle between what’s popular and makes money vs utilising technological tools. Do these online social media platforms just care about data and making money, or do they have concern for being a place for discourse?
Well done, I shall be sharing!!
Thank you. Increasingly, our collective and individual resistance to doing the hard stuff is only hurting not helping.
Best post in the last several weeks. It feels how this issue touched you. Thanks for the insights.