Living in a post-factual world + The identity of countries & persons

[C C]

Living in a post-factual world
http://www.scottmonty.com/2016/11/living...world.html

EXCERPT: [...] Many of these debates happen on Facebook, which to this day will not admit that it's a media property. Personally, I think Facebook is a media property, since more people use Facebook as a news discovery source than any other. People now open a social media app to find news more frequently than they go to the New York Times or CNN home page. According to Vox:

"The result has been a disaster for the public’s understanding of current affairs. Reporters have come under increasing pressure to write “clickbait” articles that pander to readers’ worst impulses. Too-good-to-check stories gain more traction online than stories that are balanced and thoroughly reported. That has worsened the nation’s political polarization and lowered the quality of democratic discourse."

Facebook's position is that it is a tech company, not a news company. While it may not produce any news on its own, it is still the arbiter of what people see, and as such, it has a significant responsibility to ensure that the news shared on its site is accurate and reliable....

---

The identity of countries and persons
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2016/...rsons.html

EXCERPT: [...] This suggests an interesting asymmetry between social entities and persons. For social entities, the causal connections and qualitative and material similarities across time matter much more than identity itself. For persons, the identity itself matters at least as much as these connections and similarities....

[Syne]

Facebook's position is that it is a tech company, not a news company. While it may not produce any news on its own, it is still the arbiter of what people see, and as such, it has a significant responsibility to ensure that the news shared on its site is accurate and reliable....

Except that no organization as ideologically homogenous as Facebook can be expected to recognize the truly accurate and reliable. They would rely on sources like CNN which have been shown to be biased.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Facebook's position is that it is a tech company, not a news company. While it may not produce any news on its own, it is still the arbiter of what people see, and as such, it has a significant responsibility to ensure that the news shared on its site is accurate and reliable....

Except that no organization as ideologically homogenous as Facebook can be expected to recognize the truly accurate and reliable. They would rely on sources like CNN which have been shown to be biased.

i gues scineitifcally speaking all news by virtue of delivery and observation derives its nature in interpretation.
potentially all observation is bias by a point of assymetry to mathamatical refference.
interestingly enough the relationship of the relative association of news items in its absorbtion might correlate to the human desire to create liniar symetry to potential random events.
this probably works both ways to the observer dependant on relative reference to the readers pre-disposition.

likewise we could argue the nature of law in its application to non defined choice.
e.g is the state subjective or collective to its citizens.
to apply the construct of relative non bias would probably be an algorythem in subtraction of what many might define as instictive association.
where do we draw a line between 'cultural free-will' and delivery of accountable information.
generically speaking liberal society has allowed anything goes to a point and then attempted to regulate it once it has crashed.
has the news media as a definiative form of factual information crashed and now facebook must be regulated to define a cultural bias interface with society as a form of accountable legal reference ?
e.g has the state become facebook or facebook become the state ?
hhmm...