Wednesday, 8 November 2017

man bites dog

Whilst the biggest social media news of the day is one platform’s decision to abandon a rule that ostensibly required users to put thought into their rants as they had to conform to character limitations—sort of like a telegram with a cost associated for a lack of brevity and conciseness (notwithstanding ways to circumvent this), another overlooked experiment was taking place. With the proliferation of fake news seemingly impervious to any countermeasures and talk of more regulation abuzz, the other social media titan (apt as they represent the second generation in this theogony) chose to combat spurious reporting by promoting commentary, no matter what the source, that characterized the cited article as phony. How do you feel about this? Do both deliberations fail to curb disinformation and rather accomplish the opposite? The trial-run did not discern between known yellow journalism and trusted news sources and effectively sowed distrust for legitimate media for many.