Welcome to Facebook Co. Where a clique of Silicon Valley exec yuppies now decide what is right and what is wrong for us to see.
It's a very slippery slope. Cannot wait for the next elections where any candidates with politically "wrong" ideas will see their pages silently being discarded or randomly hidden from timelines without warnings.
Arguably that's already happening. In the last round of Senate elections, Austin Peterson was repeatedly banned with vague explanations about the Terms & Conditions. It's of course just a coincidence that in most cases the post that triggered it were criticizing the incumbent whose reelection Facebook had contributed tens of thousands of dollars to.
" Where a clique of Silicon Valley exec yuppies now decide what is right and what is wrong for us to see."
I'm not sympathetic at all to FB overall, but I am sympathetic here.
Zuck would definitely prefer to not be in the business of moderating content.
They've created a kind of 'internet platform' and by virtue of their situation, they're kind of forced to do this.
And there is - no - solution.
Every nation has different laws, different thresholds for various kinds of activity, and I suggest most of what FB 'takes down' is probably technically legal, but just beyond what they would like to do.
They are also under considerable pressure from many countries to act explicitly in some cases. I'm not familiar with this Indian/Iranian situation, but it very well could be that Indian government officials leaned on them to do it. The less transparency there is, the more there is political interference in business, the more they have no choice: "We don't like Iran, so stop all this pro-Iran stuff in our country or we shut you down" type threats.
And no doubt the US gov. has their interests as well, both on the 'local petty stuff' (i.e. law enforcement) to 'strategic stuff' (i.e. we don't like Iran either, stop their propaganda).
I do however think that FB will actually try to do the right thing, I think it's just beyond their capability.
I don't think Zuck is trying to promote his view of the world in the filtering. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is 'an information architectural nightmare' - not really a political thing.
This could be an existential crisis for FB, as this happens more and more, they'll be expected to moderate 'everything' and then the business becomes infeasible.
Serving content and not doing any moderation is a choice to decide what is right and wrong for us to see. They must make the choice and I don't feel sorry for them considering how much money they (facebook as a whole, execs, employees, investors) make
They are free to exclude whatever they like, they're a private company and not beholden to what you think they should be doing. If they do the wrong thing they will go on the trash-heap of bad ideas in history, so far they're doing okay as far as being a business goes.
this is such a lazy, sheepish argument. we all know what is happening.
when your private internet provider starts to shut you down for your stupid ideas, or your private bank denies you service lets see how you feel then. and to act like the government does not already regulate the hell out of private business is just a foolish position.
There's sooo many banks though. There's probably 3 right next to each other right now on Main St. North Bumble Fuck. Less ISPs sure, but if Comcast is throttling your Netflix, you could probably nab cellular internet, or satellite, or gasp dial up. Sure those options suck, but so does hosting your businesses social media presence on Myspace, or your neighbors kid's basement hosted phpBB forum.
And yet, we have laws that require businesses to build ADA compliant bathrooms, and laws that forbid them from discriminating in both their employment practices and customer relations. If you want to make the “but they are a private business” argument, will you also argue that a private business should be able to say, serve only white people?
Why does this tired argument never seem to come up here when Facebook is doing Bad Privacy Things? They are still a private company in that case, so it seems to equally apply (especially the trash-heap part). But I don't ever see it being made in those threads. Weird.
It all comes down to what specific definitions people are using, but I draw a strong distinction between propaganda and opposing opinions about things. Propaganda is basically marketing copy for politics. It's unreliable in the same way TV ads for pharmaceuticals are unreliable compared to actual advice from actual doctors.
People with opposing political opinions might accuse each other of parroting their side's propaganda, but that's just a way to try to discredit what the person is saying. Like advertising, the only constant with propaganda is that it's bullshit: it might be true, it might not be. The person telling it to you might believe it, or they might not. They may not even know whether or not it's true, and they may not care. The purpose of propaganda, like advertising, is not to convey facts to people, but to convey emotions disguised as facts, and they know ahead of time how they want you to feel about what they're saying. It's not an honest effort to communicate facts, it's often meant to discredit the very notion of facts, so they can conveniently dismiss opposing views as just someone else's opinion.
If everything is propaganda then the question is why are we selectively choosing which propaganda to show? In that case, the real propaganda is the omission of certain propaganda, or for another choice of words the 'perspective' of another group.
We are being lied to on a regular basis, this has been going on for decades and the rise of right-wing and extreme right-wing parties reflects this.
What bothers me is that there are very few things that are not propaganda.
All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they are accepted? Clearly a distinction is made between 'acceptable propaganda' and 'unacceptable propaganda', and this distinction is made by Facebook, an American company.
I think this may be it. America has a ban on trade with Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information.
Not a lawyer and would be interested to read a constitutional law journal on this.
I think the answer hinges on where the speech is considered to be, and whether the speaker is an American.
An Iranian national handing out leaflets in Washington, D.C. is protected speech by virtue of it occurring in the United States.
An American national posting on the internet is protected from United States government orders to censor their speech, regardless of where they post it, by virtue of their nationality.
Where it gets murky is: "Is an Iranian national posting on Facebook 'in America'? Does it depend on whether they make a comment in Iran or in the United States?"
That's the sort of hypothetical that a court might be keen to sidestep entirely and instead ask, "Is it constitutional for the US to order a US company (Facebook) to engage in non-viewpoint neutral censorship?"
The content was"American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information." Meaning that the government requires the companies, which would be unconstitutional.
I don't believe that Fox and CNN have political propaganda in the sense you might imply.
Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word.
Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident.
When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda.
Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.
I 100% agree with you, so let me clarify what I was trying to say in my first comment.
US will label as propaganda any article coming from RT - for Russia, or that Iranian journal - for Iran, and now FB starts simply censoring those contents.
At the same time in Russia or Iran, news coming from US are labelled as propaganda as well.
Depending on where you live, you get fed either one of these "propaganda" and you feel you are on the "good" side and that others are on the "bad" side.
My point is the world is not divided between "good" and "bad", everything is not black or white, and the fact that a website with billions of users has the power to decide what is good or bad (or has the obligation to follow directives from a government) is a very bad idea imho.
Please don't put CNN/MSNBC/Fox in the same camp as RT, or Chinese state sponsored news. That's not fair.
This is not a situation of moral relativity.
CNN, even Fox, are actually very independent news outlets. Their news is news. (Especially the non-editorial stuff, is usually above bar)
On some, mainly political issues, they are biased.
On some national issues, they 'close ranks'.
But they are not propaganda outlets.
RT is absolutely propaganda outlet. RT is an organ of the Russian state, created specifically to promote Russian interest abroad, and to serve as a mouthpiece for the government, specifically Putin.
Trump has friends in Fox News, but quite a number of haters; many popular folks there disagree with him quite loudly, a lot. Trump has no friends in most of the rest of the press, and there's no opportunity for him to set the agenda directly for example.
RT was designed so that Putin could create the narrative he chooses, and to oppress any opposition to his regime, or the state.
Even the BBC/CBC etc. have quite a degree of independence from state organs. They have obvious political leanings in many situations, and surely will work with the state on some issues, but they are in many ways 'more independant' because they don't have to survive on click-bait.
I would personally disagree with you, Murdoch has pretty clearly defined playbook which includes propaganda to further his own ends/political world view - FOX news is a part of that. He does the same with his papers in Australia in order to get the Liberal party voted in.
I'm going off the definition of propaganda being information of a biased/misleading/untrue nature, spread to further a political agenda/view.
It's intentionally misleading, and incorrect, in order to lead people down a particular political path.
In my view, this is still different to papers that present a cleaner view of the evidence/facts/situation.
Of course you can always omit/include details to present a story in a different light, but the degree of which makes a big difference. In the case of FOX, it is clearly so over the line that it becomes propaganda (in my view).
I agree with the point about the nationalism, and occasionally jingoism from US outlets across the political spectrum.
Fox, The Sun, and other Murdoch media has so definite an agenda, that it can't be distinguished from propaganda. I don't know how else to describe it. Have seen so little output from CNN that I can't comment.
Murdoch's cosying up to those in power - of both sides of politics - is so blatant and outrageous, in several of the countries he's operated in it's a wonder it's not firmly illegal. It has been his intent to turn many an election.
Rupert Murdoch is a businessman who 'sells news as a product' to a specific niche just like every other news outlet.
The amount of spin on his network is not one bit different from, I would say MSNBC for example. Perhaps a little more than CNN, but not by much.
Ted Turner (founder of CNN), and other such media moguls follow exactly the same pattern of creating 'news as a product' and occasionally using it to create/defend narrative either personal or political.
That's how the news business mostly has always worked.
'Murdoch hate' largely exists because he normally spouts opinions that a some groups really disagree with, and so they want to consider him propaganda.
The heads of NBC/CBC are under fire for their own extremely indefensible manipulations, such as 'killing' the Ronan Farrow story a few times before it went public. Great article here: [1].
Literally covering up a mass rapist for 'favours' or because they're buddies with Weinstein. And these people still have jobs?
'News' is rife with this kind of stuff, and I believe Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch are 'the same man'.
I don't believe CNN or Fox are propaganda outlets, rather, they serve mostly their business interest which is to cater to a 'certain audience', they will bend here and there given their execs/owners wishes, and during times of 'national concern' they'll close ranks a little bit.
Rupert Murdoch is actually much closer to 'normative media mogul' than he is unique. Even the families that own major media outlets in us (i.e. NY Times) and Sweden etc. have their agendas
tl;dr: They were unwitting accomplices. The propaganda from well known Iranian government outlets was being shared frequently enough, with very little other content, that they were unwittingly part of the machine itself.
All news is not subjective. If it was, it'd be editorial content, not news reporting (obviously, don't trust any big media outlet that doesn't make a strong distinction between the two within their own organization). Now, because reporting is the product of humans, it's inevitably going to be subjective to some degree- people still decide what to report on, what words to use when describing things, etc. Objectivity in reporting is like something people can asymptotically approach but never attain.
So, there's a huge difference between a news outlet that attempts to be objective, and one that takes off running in the other direction. All news outlets are somewhere on that spectrum, and some of the most popular ones are actively trying to mislead their audience.
If all news was subjective, it wouldn't matter if someone got their news from Alex Jones or The Economist. It's all just someone's subjective opinion after all! But it does matter, it matters a lot. Some media outlets make an effort to be as truthful and transparent as they can be, and some just say whatever comes to mind in hopes that it'll keep people interested for long enough to hear their ad for vitamins for preppers or whatever.
Due to the finite amount of journalist time available to any given news outlet, they always commit biased reporting by choosing what to publish and what not to publish (effectively, publication bias). I agree that the contents themselves are not necessarily fully subjective, but I 100% believe that what is in the contents is subjective.
Coverage bias is essentially how consent gets manufactured. Give undue time and portray in a better light one side, spend time disproportionately covering one issue over another, etc.
You said it. Editorial choice makes an "objective news" subjective. Deciding what to publish or not is the key.
I don't believe in "attempts at being objective". What is needed are newspapers clearly stating their bias so that you know where to stand when you read those.
If a legitimate news source was aware of its own institutional biases, it would actively seek to avoid indulging them, at least with respect to news reporting, as opposed to editorial pieces. That's what makes it a relatively legitimate source of relatively unbiased information.
If I was aware that I had some bias about anything, I would actively seek to counteract it. I would hope that anyone would. A bias is an inherently irrational thing. A bias is like a bug in someone's mind that by definition causes them to misinterpret things that happen in real life. A bias isn't one person caring more about something than someone else does, or one person liking something that another person doesn't like. A bias is something that gets in the way of someone perceiving reality.
If some news outlet posted a big long public statement of bias, why would anyone go to them for accurate information about anything related to that publicly stated bias? If some business news site had a statement of bias in which they came out and said that they were all total fanboys of some company and that they personally owned a lot of stock in it, but then they continued to write stories about that company and making buy or sell recommendations, I would disregard anything that news site published about that company. Wouldn't you? They'd be coming out and saying that they are putting a slant on their stories that makes them less accurate and truthful, and that they've chosen to embrace it rather than squash it.
But really the biggest problem with a purported purveyor of truth and facts about the world telling everyone what their bias is, is that nobody really knows what their biases are. Even less than they know what other people's biases are. That's why they're biases. They're things that color your perceptions and make them less accurate and real, that you aren't aware of. If you were aware of them, then presumably they would stop influencing you, because you could then make a conscious effort to squash them.
Example: if someone were molested by gerbils at a very young age, they might have violent impulses towards gerbils later in life but not know why. Once they realize that they are biased against gerbils, surely they would use that knowledge to contain their irrational and awkwardly murderous impulses when encountering gerbils as an adult. A few people might instead double (or triple, or quadruple) down on their gerbil hatred, fully embracing their bias rather than rejecting it. But those are usually the sociopaths- there's always going to be some.
I realize now that everybody here does not have the same definition of "propaganda".
A subjective news alone might not be considered propaganda by all, but as soon as editorial choices by a news outlet repeat the same bias it becomes propaganda.
Maybe the distinction between "piece of news" and "content delivered by a media outlet" was unclear in my original comment, my bad then.
well of course, only _the other side_ news are subjective, with "_theirs_" carefully grouped to include people the other side of the oberton window, to sap the group legitimacy whole
tactic as old as dirt, but a lot people still falling for it
You "triggered" far more upvotes than downvotes, which is one reason why the site guidelines ask people not to go on about downvotes like this. Would you please review them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Well I admit the trend changed but I got a series of downvotes following my comment, I made this comment then when I had actually received way more downvotes than upvotes
For sure; that's how this typically happens. It's one reason why the guidelines ask you not to post such comments about voting. Vote totals fluctuate. When users see an unfairly downvoted comment, they often give corrective upvotes. Then the comment goes back into positive territory, but a post like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20057244 lingers on, orphaned and inaccurate.
What is up with any of the big corporations making these kinds of decisions ‘without appeal or comment’. It borders on criminal to conduct business that way.
Science fiction generally seemed to assume some evil AI or robots would take over the world and make arbitrary / unappealable decisions ....but naw we humans are happy to do it to each other.
Not sure if this is too far off topic or if I'll get roasted for this. "Cup of Jane" is the kind of title that's so awfully on the nose that I'd mistake it for satire.
I don't know if there is any way to really decide what is inauthentic outside of say only allowing individuals who are verified to post....and nothing else.
This is the risk you take when you are a sharecropper on someone else's land. Probably won't be long until FB takes an Adblock Plus/Yelp gatekeeper approach where they'll ban something, and then allow them back if they purchase a certain amount of advertising.
They won't do it in the West as it would be picked up on the news, but bad actors in places like India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (those are the ones I know of) would pay to have that "feature".
58 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadIt's a very slippery slope. Cannot wait for the next elections where any candidates with politically "wrong" ideas will see their pages silently being discarded or randomly hidden from timelines without warnings.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may...
Various pages belonging to the main Libertarian party ("Liberal Democratic Party") started getting shutdown[0] about a month before elections.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/davidlimbrickldp/posts/209817440381...
If Facebook has issues with commenters, then those commenters should be punished.
I'm not sympathetic at all to FB overall, but I am sympathetic here.
Zuck would definitely prefer to not be in the business of moderating content.
They've created a kind of 'internet platform' and by virtue of their situation, they're kind of forced to do this.
And there is - no - solution.
Every nation has different laws, different thresholds for various kinds of activity, and I suggest most of what FB 'takes down' is probably technically legal, but just beyond what they would like to do.
They are also under considerable pressure from many countries to act explicitly in some cases. I'm not familiar with this Indian/Iranian situation, but it very well could be that Indian government officials leaned on them to do it. The less transparency there is, the more there is political interference in business, the more they have no choice: "We don't like Iran, so stop all this pro-Iran stuff in our country or we shut you down" type threats.
And no doubt the US gov. has their interests as well, both on the 'local petty stuff' (i.e. law enforcement) to 'strategic stuff' (i.e. we don't like Iran either, stop their propaganda).
I do however think that FB will actually try to do the right thing, I think it's just beyond their capability.
I don't think Zuck is trying to promote his view of the world in the filtering. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is 'an information architectural nightmare' - not really a political thing.
This could be an existential crisis for FB, as this happens more and more, they'll be expected to moderate 'everything' and then the business becomes infeasible.
when your private internet provider starts to shut you down for your stupid ideas, or your private bank denies you service lets see how you feel then. and to act like the government does not already regulate the hell out of private business is just a foolish position.
I dislike Facebook but for a lot of people it became part of their life and some information is now only available on Facebook.
As a public utility they should be regulated on what they are allow to restrict from their users.
So what? World of Warcraft became a part of a lot of people's lives, does that mean WoW should be a utility?
Everything written is propaganda depending on what side of the opinion you were on.
Although I don’t like it, what is happening today is incredibly fascinating, watching it unfold since I have been using computers since 1990.
Mirthful because except for the polonium and nerve gas[2] everyone else has been playing the same games forever.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke-filled_room [2] Boorish to use your own people to kill someone instead of hiring it out like civilized men.
People with opposing political opinions might accuse each other of parroting their side's propaganda, but that's just a way to try to discredit what the person is saying. Like advertising, the only constant with propaganda is that it's bullshit: it might be true, it might not be. The person telling it to you might believe it, or they might not. They may not even know whether or not it's true, and they may not care. The purpose of propaganda, like advertising, is not to convey facts to people, but to convey emotions disguised as facts, and they know ahead of time how they want you to feel about what they're saying. It's not an honest effort to communicate facts, it's often meant to discredit the very notion of facts, so they can conveniently dismiss opposing views as just someone else's opinion.
We are being lied to on a regular basis, this has been going on for decades and the rise of right-wing and extreme right-wing parties reflects this.
All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they are accepted? Clearly a distinction is made between 'acceptable propaganda' and 'unacceptable propaganda', and this distinction is made by Facebook, an American company.
How acceptable is that?
I think the answer hinges on where the speech is considered to be, and whether the speaker is an American.
An Iranian national handing out leaflets in Washington, D.C. is protected speech by virtue of it occurring in the United States.
An American national posting on the internet is protected from United States government orders to censor their speech, regardless of where they post it, by virtue of their nationality.
Where it gets murky is: "Is an Iranian national posting on Facebook 'in America'? Does it depend on whether they make a comment in Iran or in the United States?"
That's the sort of hypothetical that a court might be keen to sidestep entirely and instead ask, "Is it constitutional for the US to order a US company (Facebook) to engage in non-viewpoint neutral censorship?"
Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word.
Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident.
When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda.
Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.
US will label as propaganda any article coming from RT - for Russia, or that Iranian journal - for Iran, and now FB starts simply censoring those contents.
At the same time in Russia or Iran, news coming from US are labelled as propaganda as well.
Depending on where you live, you get fed either one of these "propaganda" and you feel you are on the "good" side and that others are on the "bad" side.
My point is the world is not divided between "good" and "bad", everything is not black or white, and the fact that a website with billions of users has the power to decide what is good or bad (or has the obligation to follow directives from a government) is a very bad idea imho.
This is not a situation of moral relativity.
CNN, even Fox, are actually very independent news outlets. Their news is news. (Especially the non-editorial stuff, is usually above bar)
On some, mainly political issues, they are biased.
On some national issues, they 'close ranks'.
But they are not propaganda outlets.
RT is absolutely propaganda outlet. RT is an organ of the Russian state, created specifically to promote Russian interest abroad, and to serve as a mouthpiece for the government, specifically Putin.
Trump has friends in Fox News, but quite a number of haters; many popular folks there disagree with him quite loudly, a lot. Trump has no friends in most of the rest of the press, and there's no opportunity for him to set the agenda directly for example.
RT was designed so that Putin could create the narrative he chooses, and to oppress any opposition to his regime, or the state.
Even the BBC/CBC etc. have quite a degree of independence from state organs. They have obvious political leanings in many situations, and surely will work with the state on some issues, but they are in many ways 'more independant' because they don't have to survive on click-bait.
I'm going off the definition of propaganda being information of a biased/misleading/untrue nature, spread to further a political agenda/view.
It's intentionally misleading, and incorrect, in order to lead people down a particular political path.
In my view, this is still different to papers that present a cleaner view of the evidence/facts/situation.
Of course you can always omit/include details to present a story in a different light, but the degree of which makes a big difference. In the case of FOX, it is clearly so over the line that it becomes propaganda (in my view).
Can't comment on CNN though, never watched it.
Fox, The Sun, and other Murdoch media has so definite an agenda, that it can't be distinguished from propaganda. I don't know how else to describe it. Have seen so little output from CNN that I can't comment.
Murdoch's cosying up to those in power - of both sides of politics - is so blatant and outrageous, in several of the countries he's operated in it's a wonder it's not firmly illegal. It has been his intent to turn many an election.
The amount of spin on his network is not one bit different from, I would say MSNBC for example. Perhaps a little more than CNN, but not by much.
Ted Turner (founder of CNN), and other such media moguls follow exactly the same pattern of creating 'news as a product' and occasionally using it to create/defend narrative either personal or political.
That's how the news business mostly has always worked.
'Murdoch hate' largely exists because he normally spouts opinions that a some groups really disagree with, and so they want to consider him propaganda.
The heads of NBC/CBC are under fire for their own extremely indefensible manipulations, such as 'killing' the Ronan Farrow story a few times before it went public. Great article here: [1].
Literally covering up a mass rapist for 'favours' or because they're buddies with Weinstein. And these people still have jobs?
'News' is rife with this kind of stuff, and I believe Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch are 'the same man'.
I don't believe CNN or Fox are propaganda outlets, rather, they serve mostly their business interest which is to cater to a 'certain audience', they will bend here and there given their execs/owners wishes, and during times of 'national concern' they'll close ranks a little bit.
Rupert Murdoch is actually much closer to 'normative media mogul' than he is unique. Even the families that own major media outlets in us (i.e. NY Times) and Sweden etc. have their agendas
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-nbc-killed-ronan-farrows-w...
So, there's a huge difference between a news outlet that attempts to be objective, and one that takes off running in the other direction. All news outlets are somewhere on that spectrum, and some of the most popular ones are actively trying to mislead their audience.
If all news was subjective, it wouldn't matter if someone got their news from Alex Jones or The Economist. It's all just someone's subjective opinion after all! But it does matter, it matters a lot. Some media outlets make an effort to be as truthful and transparent as they can be, and some just say whatever comes to mind in hopes that it'll keep people interested for long enough to hear their ad for vitamins for preppers or whatever.
Coverage bias is essentially how consent gets manufactured. Give undue time and portray in a better light one side, spend time disproportionately covering one issue over another, etc.
I don't believe in "attempts at being objective". What is needed are newspapers clearly stating their bias so that you know where to stand when you read those.
If I was aware that I had some bias about anything, I would actively seek to counteract it. I would hope that anyone would. A bias is an inherently irrational thing. A bias is like a bug in someone's mind that by definition causes them to misinterpret things that happen in real life. A bias isn't one person caring more about something than someone else does, or one person liking something that another person doesn't like. A bias is something that gets in the way of someone perceiving reality.
If some news outlet posted a big long public statement of bias, why would anyone go to them for accurate information about anything related to that publicly stated bias? If some business news site had a statement of bias in which they came out and said that they were all total fanboys of some company and that they personally owned a lot of stock in it, but then they continued to write stories about that company and making buy or sell recommendations, I would disregard anything that news site published about that company. Wouldn't you? They'd be coming out and saying that they are putting a slant on their stories that makes them less accurate and truthful, and that they've chosen to embrace it rather than squash it.
But really the biggest problem with a purported purveyor of truth and facts about the world telling everyone what their bias is, is that nobody really knows what their biases are. Even less than they know what other people's biases are. That's why they're biases. They're things that color your perceptions and make them less accurate and real, that you aren't aware of. If you were aware of them, then presumably they would stop influencing you, because you could then make a conscious effort to squash them.
Example: if someone were molested by gerbils at a very young age, they might have violent impulses towards gerbils later in life but not know why. Once they realize that they are biased against gerbils, surely they would use that knowledge to contain their irrational and awkwardly murderous impulses when encountering gerbils as an adult. A few people might instead double (or triple, or quadruple) down on their gerbil hatred, fully embracing their bias rather than rejecting it. But those are usually the sociopaths- there's always going to be some.
A subjective news alone might not be considered propaganda by all, but as soon as editorial choices by a news outlet repeat the same bias it becomes propaganda.
Maybe the distinction between "piece of news" and "content delivered by a media outlet" was unclear in my original comment, my bad then.
tactic as old as dirt, but a lot people still falling for it
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20057158 and marked it off-topic.
https://m.facebook.com/DailyCupOfJane/
The "about" section presents it as:
"Sugar, spice, and everything nice.Changing the world, one mug at a time. We're your daily girl power pick-me-up.
Cup of Jane is a community launched by TIP’s Future Media Project in DC. We love our communities!"
The discreet acronym TIP stands for "The Israel Project":
https://www.theisraelproject.org/
The page mixes feminist and feel-good messages with subtle propaganda for Israel. When is Facebook going to take it down?
Facebook is a perfect example of how a monopoly will treat people
They won't do it in the West as it would be picked up on the news, but bad actors in places like India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (those are the ones I know of) would pay to have that "feature".