Facebook users are about to see a lot more propaganda thanks to new media deal

(NaturalNews) In what many critics are calling a "Faustian bargain," nine major media outlets (including the likes of The New York Times, National Geographic, The Guardian and NBC News) have agreed to partner with Facebook in providing content for the social media giant's new scheme called "Instant Articles".

Facebook will directly host the news articles on its News Feed, which will reportedly mean much faster loading times because users won't have to click on links that can take up to ten seconds to load on smartphones.

One reason the partnerships are viewed as something akin to a bargain with the devil is the fact that most of the media outlets involved have rather reluctantly agreed to go along with the plan in what has been termed a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation.

In other words, the news outlets are hungry for the vast Facebook audience and the monetization that the partnerships will create, but at the same time, the sources will be forced to end up competing with themselves. If you can get your news stories loaded instantly on Facebook, why would you choose to visit The New York Times website, for example?

The more skeptical among critics of the partnerships are predicting the demise of traditional news organizations altogether. That might be a little on the paranoid side, but there are plenty of reasons for the news outlets and the public to be wary.

It appears to many people that Facebook wants to take over our entire lives. The platform already mines more of our personal data than the NSA does, and it is constantly expanding its reach into our daily lives by targeting advertising and content to individual users based on search histories and preferences.

What happens when Facebook begins deciding what news stories we get to see? Once the algorithms Facebook uses to create targeted ads are applied to the stories it feeds us, how will that affect our perceptions? Do we really want Facebook spoon-feeding us the news it sees "fit to print"?

Google and Facebook have already seized far too much control over our access to information. Google does this by deciding what is searchable and how the results are ordered, and Facebook does this by deciding which posts and content get highlighted.

A survey by the Pew Foundation says:

When you take into account both the total reach of a site (the share of Americans who use it) and the proportion of users who get news on the site, Facebook is the obvious news powerhouse among the social media sites. Roughly two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults use the site, and half of those users get news there - amounting to 30% of the general population.

As a result, our view of the world becomes narrower as we are allowing monolithic entities to dictate the information we have access to. The "freedom" the internet once offered has been effectively taken away by those who now not only decide what we get to see but who also monitor everything we do.

There are steps that people can take to avoid being steered and tracked every time they go online. For example, Google is not the only search engine available, even if it does get the lion's share of search traffic.

A new search engine is currently under development that has been designed to prioritize alternative media and filter out disinformation. GoodGopher.com is the world's first privacy-protecting search engine that bans corporate propaganda and government disinfo.

GoodGopher.com allows private web surfing and access to content that Big Brother doesn't want you to see. With tools such as this new search engine, we have the chance to take the internet back into our own hands without being spoon-fed and spied on at the same time.

Sources:

http://www.usatoday.com

http://www.pewresearch.org

http://www.nytimes.com

http://nymag.com