So. Facebook’s trending news – curated by news curators who it now seems have more in common with MoMA curators than one would have thought – is edited and managed according to a de facto editorial content policy. This is such a surprise of course. Who would have thought something like this would come from a company run by Mark Zuckerberg? Who loves to gland handle with Latina strong-women (this sounds a little salacious but merely means sucking up to Brazil’s and Argentina’s left-wing leaders a while back in Panama) and has as a mission denying Trump the presidency. The latter goal shared by many a self-respecting conservative with a zip code somewhere in suburban Virginia, or Maryland.

For those buried in Facebook, trending news must matter at least a little. But is it as effective as editorial content in its more traditional forms – from news to blogging? What is Facebook news curation? Where does it fit in the definition of political and cultural news within an evolving online media? One clue may be that Facebook curators – if the recent insider story that is circulating is verifiable and credible – get yelled at when they don’t keep up with Twitter.

In other words, Facebook recycles – if selectively – while Twitter provokes, breaks, debates and insults. While many may lament the nastiness that any given tweet can provoke, Twitter definitely allows more breathing room for First Amendment rights, compared with Facebook’s politically correct editing of the news. Their new show, Rise and Shine, will have content provided by: NYT, Vox, and Buzzfeed. That really says it all.

But it’s merely trending news! Drop the outdated, politically correct accusation now you dinosaur or we’ll silence you! You will be so not-trending pal!

The thing is, Facebook makes way more money – profits not just revenues, to be specific – than Twitter could ever dream of. Is it merely Twitter’s bad management of its user base and its data – a gold mine or a pile of fool’s gold depending on which analyst you read? Or is free speech not as good at raking in the ad dollars, compared to a happy, virtual, global village that will run you out on a rail if you say the wrong thing?

Ok, maybe that’s not quite fair to Facebook. You can post quite a lot, but not quite as much as Twitter. Twitter is instant and a news outlet – without the fact-checking of course. But more than anything, Twitter is having a hard time monetizing it’s monthly active users. Not like Facebook. Is the first amendment profitable? Not necessarily, because it is only a part – a vital part of course – of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Free speech is not meant to make you money or make you happy. But without free speech, it’s a lot harder to achieve either.

In other words, when they went public a few years ago, the optimal strategy would have been to invest in FB. And then tweet annoyingly to your followers about how much money Zuckerberg was making you.

Comments