Want to Know What Facebook Really Thinks of Journalists? Here's What Happened When It Hired Some.

Does anybody grasp the "dominant social theme**" here? Only mainstream "news" is of any value, but "...Zukerberg is monopolizing it!". The hoi polloi should pay no attention to alternative news (or so they want us to think). The cover appears to be a story of how poor discharged reporters "...suspect that Facebook’s eventual goal is to replace its human curators with a robotic one..." The 1% is sure screwing the 99% again! (Divide-and-conquer -- rich vs poor). Participation is waning, and that, too, seems to piss 'em off.

I've steered clear of Facebook. Seems hard to find anybody over there desirous or capable of placing two sentences end-to-end to make any logic or sense. Mostly ignorant one-liners, now prevailing all "social networking" sites (unbelievably crass and illiterate insults, back and forth).

But I do now and again post links to Bell and other articles. I seldom (almost never) get feedback, but I post 'em nonetheless. A remnant will see them.

And, although we've certainly suffered loss of participants here at STR, overall the internet reformation is bringing liberty and freedom to the forefront. Too slow, perhaps, for most of our tastes, but progressing indeed. Now it seems provident to urge everyone to see behind the dominant social themes.

And to abstain from beans. Sam

**Daily Bell scuttled access to their "glossary", later referred to as "definitions". I suspect they felt folks like I might be plagiarizing, but I'm not sure about that. At least in my case I always linked to their actual definitions, or glossary site. Anyhow, found this definition on another site who apparently WERE plagiarizing (or perhaps I missed the link to DB site).