"It reminded me of what can go wrong in society, and why we now often talk at each other instead of to each other. We set up our political and social filter bubbles and they reinforce themselves—the things we read and watch have become hyper-niche and cater to our specific interests. We go down rabbit holes of special interests until we’re lost in the queen’s garden, cursing everyone above ground."

The more you do what Facebook wants you to do, the worse it becomes.

"There are no long-running talks and debates — the posts and replies are full of “More…” buttons and they disappear from a wall without trace, without reason, without notification. You never look back at the past events, to see some of the photos taken there — hell, there are no more photos of the event itself, just “Look, I was here” pictures everywhere! You never look back at a former topic, because it’s impossible to find it in the maze of the user interface."

Sometimes we use this metaphor of the Paris cafe. You go to a cafe and you have a copy of Sartre you have a copy of Le Monde and you’re reading your philosophy and you’re reading the news of the day. And then, if you’ev ever been to Paris you’ll see there’s always a dog under the next table, so you bend over to pet the dog. When you turn away from the philosophy and pet the dog, you don’t become stupid. When you flirt with the person at the next table, it doesn’t mean you can’t understand the philosophy anymore. It just makes you human.

I’m not sure Jonah Peretti’s actually accomplished this with Buzzfeed (honestly, I’m more dismissive of it than I should be given how little time I spend there), but this is certainly a worthwhile goal to strive for.

Via http://www.elizabethspiers.com/?p=140

Another vital distinction is between platform and publisher. As Ball explained, companies such as Twitter have long insisted they are the former and not the latter, which means they are not responsible for what others publish on their platform (just as AT&T is not responsible for how people use its telephones). Demanding that Twitter actively intervene in what speech is and is not permissible blurs those lines, if not outright converts them into a publisher. That necessarily vests the company with far greater responsibility for determining which ideas can and cannot be aired.
In the digital age, we are nearing the point where an idea banished by Twitter, Facebook and Google all but vanishes from public discourse entirely, and that is only going to become more true as those companies grow even further. Whatever else is true, the implications of having those companies make lists of permitted and prohibited ideas are far more significant than when ordinary private companies do the same thing.

" It’s tempting to support criminalization of, say, racist views as long as one focuses on one’s contempt for those views and ignores theserious dangers of vesting the state with the general power to create lists of prohibited ideas. That’s why free speech defenders such as the ACLU so often represent and defend racists andothers with heinous views in free speech cases: because that’s where free speech erosions become legitimized in the first instance when endorsed or acquiesced to.

"The question posed by Twitter’s announcement is not whether you think it’s a good idea for people to see the Foley video. Instead, the relevant question is whether you want Twitter, Facebook and Google executives exercising vast power over what can be seen and read."