I read a funny story the other day from the trash media I read from Australia. I have spoken a little bit about some of it over the last few weeks, like censorship laws the other day, but I wanted to add a bit more tonight, to highlight how the mainstream media operates.
“Unfortunately, it comes down to money and X’s monetisation framework is literally set up to optimise emotional, low-quality content that people just can’t get enough of,” University of Technology Queensland digital media expert Timothy Graham said.
“People shouldn’t be financially rewarded for posting and sharing harmful content, including terrorism content on platforms like X,” Ms Rowland said.
Don't let the irony and hypocrisy escape you, because what they are saying is that while they don't think individuals should have free speech or share emotionally engaging content for money, it is fine for the mainstream media to do exactly that, and make tens of billions in the process.
"The shocking way X makes money" (taken from the headline into the story) is to do exactly what the news media is doing. Not only that, a lot of the news media leverages the content of X users to pad out their stories, whether those users are valid as a voice or not. This news site at least embeds all kinds of Tweets (or whatever the fuck they call them now) into their stories to make it appear that "the internet" is outraged, while the Tweet has all of 3 likes.
Mainstream media is incredibly dishonest.
And this is what happens when clicks matter more than truth, making the speed at which something gets put online more important than the accuracy of it. The entire news media is driven by exactly the same incentive that people are driven by on X, where clickbait headlines, low-quality content is the order of the day, every day, multiple times a day, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
emotional, low-quality content that people just can’t get enough of
We have been led to believe that shorter content is better, because it is more efficient communication, but that is not true at all. All it does is transfer poor quality, shallow content, that doesn't cost much to create to an audience.
1+1=2
Congratulations, you now know math!
Journalism has been dead for a while, and I suspect that it largely killed itself, because it chose to compete on speed, not quality. While quality takes times, effort and research to build relationships and find out deeper information, competing on speed lowered the bar so that almost anyone can compete.
Including "influencers" on social media.
"Citizen journalists" don't actually have to be journalists, nor do they have to be ethical, impartial, objective or anything else, especially if they are following in the footsteps of the "professional" journalists who are also none of those things. Because they are chasing those lucrative clicks also, because that is what drives the ad revenue they need to get paid. They aren't in it for journalistic integrity, they are in it for a paycheck, and their masters pay those who generate the clicks - no matter what that content might be.
Instagram didn't make the Kardashians famous - mainstream media did.
If we want to have content where the truth is more important than the speed of release, we have to incentivize truth, or disincentivize lies. A web of trust for content that independently verifies content for validity is one way, which is an area that AI will help with more in the future, but it is also how we consume. The other aspect is to shift away from ad revenue being the only way to get paid on the internet, because once beholden to the ad dollar, the content and especially the truth, is going to suffer.
It is interesting though, as the governments of democracies around the world, and the globalized media conglomerates, are doing all they can at the moment to reign in free speech, saying that not letting us say what we want, and not allowing us to see what we want, is for our own good.
As dictated by them.
More authoritative control mechanisms.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
I do not honestly believe that AI will help verify true content. How would AI know what is true and what isn't? Personally I think the inverse will happen... AI LLMs will consume all the content available, and then start consuming content created by GAI in a kind of trash-spiral... potentially making the internet useless for news or content.
Totally agree that publications that concentrated on 'getting the story out first' in order to be the ones to go viral killed off the industry, but what I think is a massive shame is all the private equity firms that have bought up smaller local newspapers and then sold them for parts. Journalism has been attacked on multiple fronts and that truly only benefits billionaires and corrupt politicians.
The AIs can reference and resource check, essentially creating a network of cross-references that can categorize based on likelihoods. They can look at millions of data points and apply a confidence score, based on all kinds of bits of information as to whether something is likely to be true or not. There are lots of ways for AI to categorize and evaluate content, as well as identify sources of Gen-AI. I also suspect that more and more people will opt-in to human-built content, and people will want "proof of human" checks, providing more data points.
Perhaps it always was, but "back in the day" the consumer was more interested in getting useful information, but now we are just looking to be entertained.
Oh. I didn't know AI could do that. I'd be super curious to see how accurate those confidence scores get.
Isn't it funny how we still read some of that trash media even though we know it is trash media. I think a lot of times I do it just to read the comments. It really gives you a good idea of how people really think and feel when they are able to hide behind their keyboard.
I am not going to subscribe to pay for daily news from Australia. If there is a big topic, it guides me to search for other content if I choose.
Yeah, I don't pay for anything either. Even legitimate local sites, if they have a paywall, I am done.
"But that's different" probably because some people still have to believe that mainstream media actually checks what they write before they word vomit it.
do you ever get sick of hearing how "but that's different" when you point out a hypocrisy so blatant that's the excuse that has to come up
I don't get tired of it at all :D
There was an out of court settlement for the person who was named as the Bondi stabber, but wasn't.
Well I guess if you like arguing XD I very rapidly get to a point where I'm just exasperated, there's being slow to get something and godsdamned x_x
Opinions of the democracy Mr Taraz.
And that's the truth, seriously it's also to understand that in the same way we should live our life based on combining the spaces we have in our social networks, businesses, companies, personal life, relationships, our coexistence with nature and links with others.
I think it's not about depending on, trying to integrate, our life, to the things we also need and where is Moderna life is taking us.
I question whether democracies are democratic at all.
Just and convenient democracy to live in harmony, I only think that belongs to literature, it is only written, in practice, free social coexistence does not exist. That's my opinion, Mr. Taraz.
Here is my reflection, that if possible we can integrate without that means ceasing to live to be hyperconnected only and learn to use them in a utilitarian way.
Scathing criticism of the current dynamics of the media and digital platforms, heh heh heh… I do not justify the irony and hypocrisy in the treatment of freedom of expression and the monetization of content. I am sure that if HIVE does not monetize the content, no one would strive to do their best.
Friend, I find that here in La Colmena, the same thing is done as in the rest of the social networks. Most of what they post they do with the intention of receiving VOTES in favor that represent money. I'm not saying that's the case for you, but would you post and post if the audience voting on your content won't leave you at least $10?
You emphasize that “the pursuit of financial gain has led to a preference for emotional and low-quality content, sacrificing integrity and truthfulness.”
The satire he resorts to on the simplification of mathematics to “1+1=2” is the trivialization of knowledge in the age of rapid information. It is a personal concept, perhaps based on frustration.
A sentence can completely summarize a long content and therefore should not be of low quality:
No they would not, which is why we see what we see on social media in general, and what people on social media support in general - not the best.
Yes. I have been doing this for almost seven years - if you are interested to scroll back that far, I wasn't getting much for months, if anything. However, I was also able to compete on quality and write at length and detail, so I stood out from most other people who would post short content that can be found on any platform.
E=MC2 is a simple equation - how much background information is required to actually understand it? Short form communication only transmits a lot of information, when the audience is already knowledgeable in a topic. Mass media isn't writing for specialists.
Of course, I have checked your blog… But the quality of a piece of writing is not based on “the length of it”. I could write three pages and say nothing, or I could write 300 words and convey a great message. What do we base the quality of a piece of writing on? → depends on the audience, and if the idea is to GENERATE PROFITS → keep writing what that audience wants to hear-read…
Firstly, you are sounding more and more bitter as the comments roll.
And secondly, what has "profits" have to do with it? If you write for an audience, you write with them in mind, don't you?
And thirdly, no length doesn't mean quality. However, you failed to recognize the point I made of people posting what can be found in quantity anywhere else. Scarcity has value, and there aren't many people like me on or off the chain ;)
For whom is it not best? You know the saying “THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT”. You have your “truth” from your point of view, which is closely related to your personal experience; this does not mean that others do not have “their own truth”. It all depends on the lens through which you look at it… The goal is to reach a wider audience that will generate better rewards, right?
Blessings, my friend @tarazkp.
I work in a Department Store, the idea is logically to sell, for this they reward us with a percentage of sales and other commissions. We literally become psychologists to influence the customer and convince him that what he buys is what he needs. I think it's the same on social media.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Dear @tarazkp !
What is our own good?
I want to live healthy and happy.
Also, I want to go to Finland to meet my dear brother @tarazkp, but I don't have money, so I want to become rich.
But, I don't know how to become rich!😄
What do you think our own good is?😉
I have seen this not just in Twitter, but in other online websites as well. People tend to favor shock value over accuracy, and hide behind opinion pieces to justify their article. Using outlandish and over the top titles entices people more than factual reporting. I think the consumers are the ones to blame for not supporting better articles.
I was just talking with my therapist about being ahead of the curve in your chosen field. It didn't take me long to identify this place (and other online spaces) that empower the individual to create and express himself without any of the BS that has become synonymous with mainstream media. I really think this is riding the wave, not merely going with the flow, as mainstream media, "journalism" as was, is on the way out.
Many still seem blinded by the old rules, though. To be a journalist, you need to write for these biased publications, you need to trade truth for clicks and so on. Oh well, guess that's why it's the tip of the wave, and not the whole flow. It hasn't happened yet.
I haven't been following this whole X thing, though considering the public stance, Musk could literally announce having discovered a foolproof cancer cure tomorrow, they'd still bash him in the MSM.
Dunno who this Graham person is, but obviously not very up to speed. If anything, it seems to me people are reaching for more quality content online lately. It just depends where you look. And what you want to see...
I'm glad you see it all through such a healthy lens.
Unfortunately, instagram, X or any other platform do not really care about what you post. As long as you are having a large number of audience and that’s what they want
Sometimes I wonder who is actually paid to trawl the internet to make stories out of social media content. It seems like a cushy job to me. If they ban certain media, those people will be out of a job.
They do rely on emotional pull. I have to resist the strong urge to click on the headline that promises a titillating tale of why a bridesmaid slept with both the bride AND the groom or why the ENTIRE INTERNET IS DIVIDED OVER THIS ONE THING.
But then many others don't have this 💪 strength or understanding they're being sold a line.
Let alone how poor people's literacy of any kind is. Or how hard it is to find good longform content, because our attention spans have been reduced to slivers.