SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
So Apple's got its very own newsreader app, aptly called News. It will come natively installed on its iOS 9 mobile operating system this fall. This adds to the list of third parties that publishers have come to rely upon to distribute their stories. Apple says one of the most appealing things about News is stories will look and feel distinctive, as if they're coming directly from publishers' own sites, creating a sense of independent control over their own content.
And yet.
As with its Podcasts app, iTunes, and the App Store, News is Apple's app, which means Apple is the ultimate arbiter of what appears on it. Shortly after announcing News, the company released a publishing guide. So far, it seems targeted largely at developers testing the app and figuring out how to publish on it ahead of its official release. But the guide does say "channels" will need to be approved by Apple, meaning Apple will determine to some extent what is or is not allowed on News.
And this matters at a time when a few prominent tech companies are becoming the stewards of the news millions of people see, read, watch, and experience each day. Social sites like Facebook and Twitter are the entry point for many readers checking the news daily—not to mention Google News. And each has its own standards for what it will and will not allow to appear. Now that Apple has committed to becoming a publisher, another tech giant will be mediating the news that the public consumes. This means the standards Apple chooses to follow will have a direct impact on what millions of readers see—or don't see.
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/apples-news-app-gives-power-decide-whats-news/
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Thursday June 11 2015, @11:29PM
Social media which learns what you want to hear ends up showing that to you. It forms communities where none would otherwise exist. This is how the anti-vaccine movements spread, and why it's so difficult to reach them with reality. Those stories literally do not appear to them. Same goes for either flavor of "political party" here in the USA you want to convince yourself is somehow different from the other. Truth and reality has no place in these discussions.
(Before you go there - yes, I am aware of and vote 3rd party whenever possible; if not possible I vote against all incumbents)
Even a subtle, persistent bias in what gets shown to people has insidious effects. Just look at branding and advertising.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday June 12 2015, @12:55AM
Uhh, no sir. You can't reach them with reality, because you can't prove it really is. Until you solve the problem with integrity and ethics in the medical community, you will constantly find the "truth" and "reality" not sticking to these "people" regardless of source. Do you really think just because a biased study, bought and paid for by pharmaceuticals, is convincing anyone when seen in the major news channels? How can they when they also report that the Big Pharma gets caught killing people, and then let off by the FDA with a Too-Big-To-Fail cop out on why they are not rightfully destroyed in accordance with established law. You try and fight claims against vaccines, when the real battle is for the hearts and minds of these people. Convincing them of the science is actually easy, convincing them that the corporations are truly interested in performing the science solely for their medical benefit is practically impossible given the current environment of endemic corruption.
Before you claim your "shit doesn't stink", really make sure it doesn't stink.
Now, if you used climate change and global warming, you still come back to a problem of trust. It's not that the reality of climate change can't sink in, it's that there isn't enough trust in the system. Even here, we discuss the failings of the scientific community, problems with metrics, integrity and submission standards of scientific journals, proper use of statistics, etc. On a sophisticated and informed level we are skeptics of ourselves, and extremely cognizant of the penchant for corrupt and biased science.
The news is no different, and in fact, far worse for its skepticism. There are no scientists, and the well trained English majors are dying off. The publishing channels are owned by old men, who are openly and admittedly engaged in buying politicians, presidencies, etc. So what you end up with is openly pandered news controlled by corrupt men, and delivered in increasingly poorly written articles. Yeah, I wouldn't be swayed too much by what I read there either.
So while I might agree that Social Media is *even worse* for pandering to its audience members, don't blame the audience for not trusting the sources. They know they are being lied to most of the time, and most lack the sophistication or will to do anything about it. Wherever they turn, they are relying on somebody else to bring them the news, interpret what is going on, and explain it to them. In short, they're fucked. Where do you expect them to go for the "truth" and "reality" you wish them to be exposed to?
That's the truly sad part, as the only trustworthy people in their minds, are themselves. I find it reasonable that an anti-vac position can go viral, even when uninformed, as that independent publisher has far more trust and integrity than the incumbents. Truly, it's easier to believe that random poster on Social Media, then it is a poorly written article on CNN.com. This is your battle, not raving about how they're just too stupid to listen.
As for me and my news, it's fairly simple - SoylentNews . I know and understand the bias around here, and deep down, I don't believe a fucking thing anyone says in TFA till I see it real in reality around me. Until then, it's grouped in with the lies I'm fed from every direction on the Internet, with nearly all of these directions (this place being an exception) being down on their knees blowing those really in charge of the publishing. Standard operating procedure for corporations, and it's always corporations bringing the news with a rich man at the top making the decisions in a selfish fashion.
Apple's Walled Garden having a policy they decide what the truth and reality is that get's reported? I'm utterly and completely shocked . It's almost as if the place is a large container where free thought and expressions of ideas are restricted? As if, it's in accordance with the published ideas and concepts of the founder? Nah, that would be trolling Apple right? ;)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:28AM
Its very well proven that the benefits far outweigh the risks. So then what's the complaint? That they aren't 100% perfectly effective and completely harmless? You live in reality, nothing is perfect and nothing is harmless, thats why we weight things on a scale of "risk vs benefit". If not being 100% absolutely safe and effective is a requirement, then you will be too paralyzed by fear to do literally anything - you cannot take any kind of medicine at all, nor can you drink anything (liquids such as water can kill you in many different ways, not safe at all!), nor eat anything (food and stuff in food can kill you too!), nor use any kind of machinery or tool, nor even go outside; even staying inside is unsafe! The benefits for everything listed are great enough that they outweigh the risks - regardless of how potentially harmful they are, the benefits are enough to make it worth the risk. Vaccines are the same, the benefits of being vaccinated and living in a vaccinated society far outweigh the risks inherent in the vaccinations themselves.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 17 2015, @12:09AM
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
I can accept the risks. Guess what? You're going to die. Going to happen my friend. Yeah, there are "risks" to walking around, breathing, the human condition.....
What I cannot accept... is some rich fucker on a private plane, who is only rich because he made me and my family accept risks for his greater profit . That's the real issue, not whether or not risk exists. What is so wholly unconscionable about them pushing the risks on to us, is the information asymmetry whereby the risk is explained differently, that it's in accordance with established production guidelines, blah, blah, blah. It's the lies, and then it's the willful ignorance of the truth, when the truth becomes inconvenient to the executives wallets and the all mighty shareholder.
Unlike you pathetic attempt to paint my objections as fear mongering, corporations have been wildly successful, or the PEOPLE inside them, at knowingly pushing risks onto consumers for profit. If I tell you to go into a building and pick up an object and bring it back to me for $50, are you going to be so tough when you're paralyzed from the faulty equipment I failed to mention? I don't think so pal. You'll bitch, moan, cry, and try to get a viral video about the mean executive man who told you to go into the building without explaining to you those additional risks. You'll complain wildly from your wheel chair on how regulation needs to exist to protect you.
Guess what? I get to feel this way with a free pass since the FDA has made it plenty clear that thousands of deaths due to reckless science, falsified studies, poor manufacturing oversight, etc. not being properly managed by the FDA, isn't enough to follow their own laws and bring accountability to these corporations. In our medical community, they applied to the Too-Big-To-Fail mantra and let people run free (and richer) that should be in prison for mass murder. Just like Wall Street gets handed a pass, a bunch of money, and no accountability, the Medical community gets treated special.
Ohh, I already fucking said I would take my kids should I ever have to them to another country. I don't argue the overall scientific facts surrounding vaccines, just the particulars about some new ones, and whether or not regulation exists and is appropriate. Now, that's an issue for governments, NOT science. My complete lack of confidence is in the scientific and medical community's ethics and integrity, at least in the U.S. I do believe it should be possible in a suitably advanced country with good healthcare (U.S is way way behind) to trust the source of the vaccines. Their regulatory bodies might not be wholly corrupt institutions.
Fuck, our FDA is led by a Monsanto puppet. Tell me about your sophisticated understanding of the risks and their sources again? I wait with bated breath.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @07:40AM
You're a physics major, you know about how when you measure something you need to account for all the influences. Why don't you demand that from the people studying vaccines, since they want to mandate them for all of humanity? Look at the evidence they present to the public*, they don't attempt accounting for shit. Yet you'll let them get away with it. The drop in measles is for sure 100% due to vaccines, no need to rule out or account for any other factors.
What about the propaganda campaigns they ran to convince an apathetic public and doctors that measles was worth eradicating? Would that effect R0 given that people used to spread it on purpose to "get it over with"? What about the gradual vetting of diagnoses with lab tests? What about all the theories regarding contagion (SIR, etc) that assume well mixing populations of constant size? They use those to justify what percent of people need to get vaccinated. Have you ever seen a paper able to fit the data in the plots shown on that wikipedia page? I haven't, and afaict they can't with 90% vaccination rates. Did you check or are you taking this stuff on faith?
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine#Effectiveness