POLITICS & PROPAGANDA

Is Medium Trying to Become the Next Facebook?

A look at some of the latest toxic sewage seen floating in your feed

There’s no delicate way to phrase this question other than to ask, “What the fuck is wrong with Ev Williams and his troupe of trained corgi-bot curators?”

I just read an “essay” by a columnist who writes for Newsmax and Townhall, two right wing blog sites that make Fox News look like the Holy Grail of journalism. I put the word “essay” in quotes because I didn’t know fanfic qualified as a recognized topic.

While I sometimes go to those sites to see how the fact-free part of our population fill their brains, I didn’t expect to find this turd floating around on my feed, listed as “POPULAR ON MEDIUM.”

When the author pronounced that “Trump has governed as a businessperson,” I thought I was reading a piece of satire. It’s hard for me to consider a lying, race-baiting, gutless (in an avoiding-military-service kind of way), corrupt, influence-peddling, contract-breaking, irresponsible and incompetent (if not treasonous) goon as acting like a “businessperson.”

Even Tony Soprano has shown more tact and diplomacy than Agent Orange.

But there it was at the top of the page; the article was curated in Politics.

How exactly does an article quality as “POPULAR ON MEDIUM” when a negative response calling bullshit on the author earns 82 more fans than the actual article?

The last time I looked, popular was defined as “liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group.” What does it say when there are 1327 claps for the negative response to only 958 for the article?

Of the now 161 responses, 150 were negative, either attacking lack of facts in the article, asking what the author is smoking, or being sure the article was satire. A few responses were from cynics who believe the American voter is so stupid Trump will probably win in November. And six or seven responses were positive.

But let’s ignore the 220 people who thought the article was trash. Let’s assume that the article qualified as “popular” because 138 (as of this writing) conservative subscribers thought this was Manna from heaven appearing in the vast wasteland of articles promoting equality, diversity and tolerance.

The big question is how does an article devoid of facts get curated?

If you read Medium’s curation guidelines, you might wonder, too, why an article so patently ridiculous ends up being featured. I’ll save you the time and quote their curation guidelines:

What curators look for in a story

We value quality content — fresh ideas, unique perspectives, varied voices, smart thinking — and believe readers do, too. Here are the elements our curation team considers in evaluating story quality:

I’m going to put the key elements in really big letters to point out how much the corgi-bots broke their own rules to curate the article. (My comments in italics)

Does the story meet a high editorial standard? — Is it well-written, easy to follow, free of errors, appropriately sourced, narratively strong, and compelling?

(The author talked about a single press conference for half the article to show that Herr Drumpf is suddenly acting like a politician, then makes a bunch of unsourced, wild predictions in the second half. How does this qualify as strong or compelling?)

Is it rigorous? — Are claims supported? Sources cited alongside stated facts? Does the story hold up to scrutiny?

(The author predicts: “With the economy showing extremely high growth rates…” This has no basis in reality. In two of the three years before the pandemic, the US GDP growth rate was worse than average compared to the period from 1948–2020. Is he comparing the economy to the shut down in March? Why doesn’t he define his terms and provide citations?)

Is it honest? — Is the story written in good faith? Is it truthful?

(When you quote someone else as the sole basis for your prediction, are you being honest, or are you just a political hack? Here’s his prediction: “Trump believes the rate will fall below 10% by September and perhaps earlier, approaching 8% or less by year-end.” Cheeto Jesus also believes he had the biggest crowd in history for his inauguration.)

Here are the rules that disqualify a story which were also ignored:

Stories that glorify, celebrate, downplay, or trivialize violence, suffering, abuse, or deaths.

(What happens when an article ignores the hundreds of deaths of black people due to police brutality and massive protests throughout the country? The only mention of violence is the line, “…with Trump ending the violence in cities…” How is he doing that again? By calling in the military?)

Pseudoscience or questionable health/medical/diet claims, including anti-vaxx

(The author claims “Also, in September or October, at least one and possibly as many as three or four vaccines will be approved by the FDA.” According to the BBC, “Most experts think a vaccine is likely to become widely available by mid-2021.” When did Medium add the Oracle of Delphi to their curation staff?

Also, why did Medium not add their normal “we don’t fact check, consult with the CDC” message at the top of his article?

I would think making an irresponsible claim about the FDA approving at least one and possibly as many as three or four vaccines is a statement about the pandemic even if it doesn’t specifically use the words Covid-19, coronavirus or pandemic.)

Medium, it’s bad enough that you promote mindless data-driven content, and self-help gruel, do you have to become another willing participant in the race to a fact-free online experience?