Not only are they unwilling to risk it, they are often really vocal about their contempt for anyone who picks a field that isn't super lucrative (since the only valid use of an education in their minds is to make money.) So a rejection of creative fields like journalism is baked into their philosophy, but then they whine and moan about not being given access to those fields, when they have done none of the work needed to gain that access.

The youtube comments are delightful.

>>>Glenn Beck = THE CUCK MESSIAH

They've said cuck so much the word has lost all meaning!

The whole internet says cuck so much it's lost all meaning.

Mark Cuckerberg.

Cucker Carlson

I never bothered to learn what that word means.

Feels good.

John Holmes Mothercucker

On top of that being Fox News staff complaining about media bias.

Resolved: Whenever anybody complains about BIAS, they're always complaining about someone not reinforcing their own personal bias. Objective people understand that Fox News is conservative, Facebook is liberal, and only get mad when someone is telling actual untruths. Only the biased complain about "bias".

Well, no, John. Everyone may have their own bias, yes, but people of good conscience can be, and more than likely are, bothered by the presence of bias *even when* said bias happens to be in their favour. The reasons for being bothered by bias are as many as there are people to think them - it could be a philosophical commitment to what the acients called "liberalism", it could be a conscious epistomelogical attempt to overcome one's own bias in order to think objectively, it could even be a recognition that systemic bias which serves one's interests in the short-term could very easily be co-opted by one's enemies, and used against one's interests in the long-term.

Maybe the Other in question is only bothered by bias because that bias doesn't suit their needs; so what? Their motives don't have any bearing on the validity of their arguments. And maybe YOU aren't bothered by bias, Mr Holmes, but I submit that this is only because you are comfortable with your own all-consuming biases, and enjoy the freedom that comes from not having to think clearly. You revel in it.

True, that. Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", which is a lie. Facebook claims to be neutral in its news story selection, and in fact has a liberal bias. These are quite distinct from say, Democracy Now which claims to be exactly what it is. I try to tune in to all sources, but I fundamentally distrust those that claim to be something they are not.

I thought Democracy Now had been dismantled per order of His Imperial Majesty, Oscar I?

Also, Facebook is quite distinct from Fox News or the late Democracy Now. Facebook is not a news channel, it is the world's largest and most important "social" internet hub (which is a polite way of saying "massive, self-compilling, NSA surveillance grid"). If Fox News is structurally based, you just change the channel. If the Digital Commons is structurally biased, what are you going to do? Start blogging on FurAffinity instead?

It will been reconstituted as "Hunker in the Bunker", as I mentioned, but that is yet to be. Soon, my friend, soon...

The ridiculous thing about what Facebook did, which was to hire a bunch of editors to train up their AI algo, is the assumption that somehow you could do this as a one off. The bias is now baked into the algorithm, and more importantly, unless there has been some super advance in AI, it can be gamed by natural intelligences. I call this the Google Problem: how do you stop people from salting their stories to push them to the top of the AI story selector? You _must_ have natural intelligence to guide the AI. But they fired all the editors, and claim it is done entirely by machine. If they persist in this foolishness, look for crazy nonsense in the trending stories shortly.

Do you use facebook? I don't, and probably never will. Hey, I have a couple websites on two virtual servers, whatever do I need them for?

Screw that, hire a bunch of Amish!