I think it's cyclical-- remember the original consumer internet was based on portals such as MiniTel, CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, then the portal concept shifted to a search/Google based "portal" as people wanted content access outside of the curated portal content.
Walled garden devices are pretty irrelevant though because unless that wall blocks the internet, there is little effect. Current walled gardens are about application security and not about actual content-- the most locked down iPhone can still access the open internet -- so device walled gardening has nothing to do with information access generally.
Also the obsession with "stopping fake news" coming from the American left is what's causing Google and Facebook to respond -- they couldn't care less about fake news -- they are responding to market pressures. Google and Facebook aren't leading the charge against fake news in the US -- leftist activists are the ones screaming the loudest because they are still fuming about Trump.
In Europe, its governments that are pressuring companies to censor things -- for example the so-called right to be forgotten. Governments are the problem not the companies -- at least in Europe.
Why would Facebook or Google care about fake news? They don't -- until a major portion of their constituencies start howling about it. Fakebook and Google weren't unilaterally concerned about content veracity -- until a large segment of people started complaining about it.
>> so device walled gardening has nothing to do with information access generally.
I disagree, on iOS specifically you have no practical way to install/sideload your own applications and thus what you can and can not do is wholly controlled by Apple. Applications determine what parts of the Internet you can actually use.
My impression of "Fake News" is that it is a new push for political correctness and censorship in news publications, while it does not improve things like the quality, transparancy and trustworthiness of sources and references of news.
It could also be interpreted as a push for platform control; if you want to influence people using our platform, fucking pay for it!
Google and Facebook might care about "Fake News" (i.e. non vanilla left or mainstream media type slant which is what the term often means although certainly real "fake news" exists) for reasons of self interest.
The policies of nationalists aren't all friendly in principal to the global agendas of these outfits. On imported labor for instance.
Walled garden devices are pretty irrelevant though because unless that wall blocks the internet, there is little effect. Current walled gardens are about application security and not about actual content-- the most locked down iPhone can still access the open internet -- so device walled gardening has nothing to do with information access generally.
Also the obsession with "stopping fake news" coming from the American left is what's causing Google and Facebook to respond -- they couldn't care less about fake news -- they are responding to market pressures. Google and Facebook aren't leading the charge against fake news in the US -- leftist activists are the ones screaming the loudest because they are still fuming about Trump.
In Europe, its governments that are pressuring companies to censor things -- for example the so-called right to be forgotten. Governments are the problem not the companies -- at least in Europe.
Why would Facebook or Google care about fake news? They don't -- until a major portion of their constituencies start howling about it. Fakebook and Google weren't unilaterally concerned about content veracity -- until a large segment of people started complaining about it.