> The backlash was so extreme that Twitter reinstated the time-based timeline [wait for the punchline] two years later.
There's no call to action here. All it says is customization is better than personalization while accepting that the internet must be ad powered. The larger problem to solve is filter bubbles.
I really don't know what to make of the filter bubble discussion. I get the feeling that the problem began well before social media. The political divide in the USA is what fuels those bubbles, and that started well before Facebook and Twitter.
Social media almost certainly accelerates the divide, but I'm not sure we can entirely ignore the fact that there are billion dollar corporations that feed off of it.
In the best case, we can say we just want to point out blatant lies. But those lies are often reinforced by traditional media, politicians, etc. Facebook has repeatedly said they will not come out on the side of truth. They'll let any politician lie as much as they want, even if it would otherwise break their ToS. How can we break filter bubbles if the powerful are allowed free reign to execute disinformation campaigns?
Not one word what the actual harm is. I mean I get it, Facebook is evil, but this whole article feels like someone (using ads as a business model crying witch (data! Ads!) to an angry mob without one piece od explanation what the actual harm is.
Right below the headline, there is a prominent Facebook icon, providing free publicity for Facebook, as well as allowing Wired to use Facebook as a marketing platform.
