[whoopdedo]

Part (or the whole?) of the problem is the amplifier isn't reaching the "rest" of the country, but rather selectively isolating who does and does not receive the message. Newspapers were visible to all. When I pick up a broadsheet to read I know that I'm choosing a particular source of information; and choosing not to read a different source. But I'm aware that there are other newspapers and that knowledge influences how I weigh what I read compared to what other people are reading.

Two people who live near each other, work together, shop at the same stores, send their children to the same school, et al, will have completely different experiences when they go on the internet. And each person's experience is hidden from the other, so there is no way for one person to get a glimpse of how the other is seeing their news. That means if those two people were to talk to each other about what they've seen on the internet, they will be confounded by the lack of common experience. What shared experiences exist are likely banal topics such as sports or movies. Each person will be convinced that their knowledge is the dominant viewpoint because it's the majority of the things they find on the web. It's the other guy who is missing the big picture.

Instead of me choosing the newspaper. It's the newspaper choosing me.

[wdewind]

Right, and my point is this is the exact same argument the church, and other centralized publishing powers at the time, made about the printing press:

Imagine there being competing interpretations of God? How could we form a community? Wont people have completely different experiences in life if they don't have the same experience with God? If we let someone get exposed to the "bad media" before they are exposed to the "good media" how will they ever know what the "good media" is? Can someone please think of the children?

It turns out not a lot of people are actually in favor of freedom when push comes to shove.

[wutbrodo]

Right, all this hysteria about tech companies' irresponsibility is simply "how dare you give the average person an easier route to expressing themselves and connecting to each other". Hell, it might not even be wrong that this is a bad thing[1], but the discourse around it is so dishonest.

[1] There's long been a place in political philosophy for acknowledging that it's possible for the masses to have too much direct power

[whoopdedo]

Except news isn't religion. The fake news sources will have you believe that their lies are of equal stature as others' facts.

If you're talking about a central authority choosing what information people get to see, wouldn't that make Facebook and their algorithm the Church in this situation?

[wdewind]

> The fake news sources will have you believe that their lies are of equal stature as others' facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

[A2017U1]

> news isn't religion

Anecdotally it feels that way in modern society.

Ask a random person if they believe Fox news.