Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the Facebook-playing-the-decider dept.

Michael Nunez, reporting for Gizmodo: Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network's influential "trending" news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site's users. In other words, Facebook's news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing -- but it is in stark contrast to the company's claims that the trending module simply lists "topics that have recently become popular on Facebook." The revelation comes amid a report on the same publication which claimed that a small group of journalists controlled and decided what should trend on Facebook. Also recently, a leaked screenshot revealed Facebook employees asking whether they should do something to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the president.

40 of 639 comments (clear)

  1. In other news, water gets things wet... by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    res ipsa loquitur

    1. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The big story here is that facebook wants to become the *only* way you get your news. No news outlet really was built with that goal in mind, they all are just "newspapers".

      I have disliked this thought from the day I've heard it, and this is just more proof to why it is a bad idea for me as an user to use this service. It might be a good idea for facebook, obviously mark zuckerberg became really rich with that.

      Its the same story as selling junk food it seems. Bad for the customer but good for the seller.

    2. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'd be amazed how far the mainstream media went to suppress liberal views this election cycle. In particular, the behavior of the NY Times and Washington Post became indefensible. So, it goes both ways.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It does go both ways. But it certainly has tilted toward liberal control in the greater media outlets. At least most of us know the leanings of the major papers and can apply the right skepticism. I fear our younger generations haven't quite figured it out yet. I supposed I was that way in my youth as well.

    4. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Became indefensible?

      The NY times have been DNC owned and operated for a long, long time.

      Your post tells me you thought they were defensible when they did the exact same thing to conservatives.

      Grow up. It's not OK when your side does it. MSNBC is not defensible. 'Democracy Now' is not defensible.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah yes the "liberal media" LOL. The largest single news source in the US is Fox News, but sure, let's go with that obscure idea that there's some left-wing media. MSNBC is the only one that's left wing, CNN and the rest are fairly neutral or right leaning by multiple sources, but you keep on believing your little weird world view. Add to that conservatives control all talk radio, large swaths of the internet and Twitter and despite what this article implies without a shred of actual evidence, you know, proof, you continue to think you're able to discern truth any better than a naive high schooler. This article is a right wing circle jerk and nothing more.

    6. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A single network with the largest single percentage of individual networks, but (and objective numbers are hard to find here), but all other sources are between 2 and 3 times the viewers of the Fox Network.

      Newspapers and magazines, there does not appear to be an equivalent of Fox News.

      And online, it doesn't matter, as people tend to self-segregate by politics for news sites.

      But the argument that there is no "liberal media" fails on analysis. . .

    7. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also clear to anyone with any objectivity that conservative ideas have their own billionaire-funded media outlets to promote and distribute right wing propaganda as news. I totally understand any group that wants to screen out the right wing noise machine. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

      While you're at it explain how Rush Limbaugh has been able to stay on the air for so long with nothing but music playing during commercial breaks.

      Sounds like you've been getting all your information from the hard left biased 'news' sources, or maybe liberal funded talk radio speakers. Who give a flying F where Limbaugh gets his paycheck. everyone knows that he's a conservative. Do liberals activists getting funded by liberal backers offend you as much? Frankly, I could care less about either, I don't listen to either and don't lay awake at night fretting about either. If your answer to FB censorship is that Rush has conservative supporters, well all I can say is "good for you" because there is no logical way to tie the point.

    8. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Left, right... it's all relative.

      Remember that what passes for left-wing in the US is right-wing by European standards - do you see many democrats calling for a full public healthcare system, as is standard in Europe?

    9. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is just journalism majors being journalism majors. It's why we can't get decent coverage of science stories.

    10. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by nucrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The media world in a nut shell:

      1. Revenue is generated off of advertising dollars
      2. Advertisements sell best when you have access
      3. You gain access by building a rapport with high profile interviewees.
      3a. Don't say anything too controversial or you will end that rapport
      3b. Create enough controversy that you get advertising dollars.
      This allows for high profile interviewees such as Trump and Clinton to get glamorous interviews while spokespersons get shafted. This is also why Hillary and Trump get these polite interviews while Sanders gets more of a hard hitting interview.
      4. Don't make the our company look bad.

      As some of these people get a bit more clout such as Rachel Maddow, they get the opportunity to shirk some of the rules, but for the most part, you see these people abide by the rules of the media darlings so that they can build up their reputation and get more press time inside the company.

      Liberal or Conservative biases aside, all work the same.

      If the Democrats started attacking campaign donations aggressively like Bernie Sanders, you would see a shift in liberal bias by the media because guess who benefits from campaign donations.

      --
      Place something witty here
    11. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand how there is not even more apprehension with Clinton.

      Why would there be apprehension with Clinton? We know roughly what she would do in office, which is to continue the policies of the Obama administration. You might like that idea or hate it (I hate it, but for different reasons than the conservatives do), but it's not an unknown to be nervous about in the way a Trump presidency would be.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I'm president, I'm going to make the debt great again. It'll make your head spin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re: In other news, water gets things wet... by Altus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullcrap. This has been the primary point of contention between Bernie Sanders and the democratic leadership. The current democratic front runner for president is on record as saying it is impossible and a bad idea and will never ever happen. Thats the democratic standard these days, its not very liberal.

      Now if the question was "do you hear progressives calling for full public healtcare" then sure, that happens all the time, but the democratic party no longer strongly represents progressive values. It only supports things that are "liberal" when they can draw a line of outrage between them and the republicans.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    14. Re: In other news, water gets things wet... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what do you think happens when you print money to pay off debt?

      Who cares? Trump didn't say he would do that. He said you could avoid default if you did that, but never said he'd do it. But you are so glad to think the liberal reporter found a 'gotcha' on Trump, you still won't read the words he actually spoke and decide for yourself. I assume that you'll never admit you were misled by the article, and if you somehow do admit it, you would forgive and still trust that source in the future.

    15. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by randomErr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there a liberal equivalent of talk radio?

      Commercially, no. All large scale commercial attempts have failed spectacularly. Air America is the most outstanding attempt that comes to mind. The only national network is NPR. While not specifically liberal, the network tends toward liberal views. Many of NPR's large supporters have a liberal bend so they have a large influence on their programming.

      There several independent liberal radio station but they tend be in larger, more affluent cities.

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    16. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by i_ate_god · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is liberal and conservative media. But this is not indicative of most of the media. I would argue that most of the media doesn't care and are just so thrilled to have a Trump vs Clinton battle to gabble on about for the rest of the year.

      In other words, the media doesn't favor Trump nor Clinton, it favors the fight between them because that is what will bring it revenue.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    17. Re:In other news, water gets things wet... by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Newspapers - holy god, have you never read the WSJ?

      I know something about the WSJ. I read them for 30 years. I was a journalist, I ran into their reporters, and I used to pick up stories from the WSJ all the time, adding my own reporting, and frequently interviewed/fact checked the same sources they interviewed.

      For all that time, the WSJ had an uncanny reputation among left and right for objective, accurate, unbiased reporting that was not influenced by their advertisers or publisher. That was unusual in the news business. One of their reporters, A. Kent MacDougal, wrote a great article for Monthly Review about how he, as a socialist, could write anything he wanted as long as he backed it up with facts.

      The great moment that established the WSJ's credibility was when in the 1950s they got a leak of General Motors' new cars, and GM didn't want them printed. GM threatened to cancel all their advertising in the WSJ if they printed it. The WSJ printed it. GM cancelled their ads. GM needed the WSJ more than the WSJ needed GM. GM finally came crawling back, and it was a long time before the WSJ took them back. There really aren't too many newspapers or magazines that would stand up to a major advertiser like that. I used to read stories on auto safety and pollution in the New York Times that were effectively censored by their auto advertisers. Ms. magazine throughout its history published cigarette ads (which according to Ms. advertising policy, were a seal of approval), while running stories on every cancer except lung cancer.

      The reason for that, I concluded, was that the WSJ was owned by a wealthy family, the Bancrofts, who were politically liberal but believed in free speech and balanced journalism, and weren't out to maximize their profits. If every wealthy corporate owner was like the old Bancrofts, America would be a better country. But the next generation of Bancrofts were more interested in money than principle, and sold out to Rupert Murdoch. That's my great man/woman theory of journalism.

      Under Murdoch, the WSJ has indeed become a corporate whore. I tried to give him a chance, but stopped subscribing when they started writing about "death taxes." Great journalism was worth $250 a year. Murdoch propaganda is worth zero.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12...
      Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal
      David Carr
      THE MEDIA EQUATION
      DEC. 13, 2009

      A little over a year ago, Robert Thomson, The Journal's top editor, picked Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, as his deputy managing editor. Mr. Baker is a former Washington bureau chief of The Financial Times with a great deal of expertise in the Beltway. The two men came of age in the more partisan milieu of British journalism.

      According to several former members of the Washington bureau and two current ones, the two men have had a big impact on the paper's Washington coverage, adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration. And given that the paper's circulation continues to grow, albeit helped along by some discounts, there's nothing to suggest that The Journal's readers don't approve.
      Continue reading the main story

      Mr. Baker, a neoconservative columnist of acute political views, has been especially active in managing coverage in Washington, creating significant grumbling, if not resistance, from the staff there. Reporters say the coverage of the Obama administration is reflexively critical, the health care debate is generally framed in terms of costs rather than benefits â" "health care reformâ is a generally forbidden phrase â" and global warming skeptics have gotten a steady ride. (Of course, objectivity is in the eyes of the reader.)

      The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly st

  2. Conservative? by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The GOP is not Conservative at all. They like to spend as much as the Democrats do. People need to find a better label for the Republicrats.

    1. Re:Conservative? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conservative does not mean libertarian. There was a time when embracing some libertarian ideas seemed like a good way to pursue a conservative agenda, but that is no longer the case: (1) Since older people are disproportionately conservative, they need to keep this base happy by keeping benefits to the elderly flowing. Not a "small government" principle at all. Yet until Obama, George Bush had the record for largest expansion of Medicare ever. (2) Since society started to move to embrace social movements unpopular among conservatives, they had to use the federal government to try and stomp this out - see the "defense of marriage act" as one example. (3) It's hardly a new phenomenon, but the Republicans and Democrats have both competed vigorously for the support for the richest people in the US. This has led to lower taxes without corresponding cuts in spending. So we no longer borrow for infrastructure spending, but we need loans simply to cover day-to-day operations. It's not hurting us right now, but eventually rates will go up and we'll feel that debt burden. Or rather, our children will.

      The sad fact is that neither party in the US stands for responsible or sustainable fiscal policy anymore. And arguably, "conservatives" even less so given their inability to compromise on taxes or on entitlement programs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Conservative? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing is static, including language. In political science, terms such as "conservative", "liberal", etc. are not buckets, but points on a spectrum. In the classic polysci "wheel" of political beliefs, the Republican and Democrat positions are remarkably close in almost all respects except social policy. And even there, the differences are not all that far apart. The mainstream position of both parties has been trending towards larger government with larger social programs. Free trade has been a cornerstone of both parties' economic policy since the 90s. The handoff in economic policy amidst a crisis between Bush and Obama was remarkably smooth and consistent. Both parties have had activist foreign policy since WW2. Both sides supported the Patriot Act and domestic spying. Deregulation of financial markets, etc, etc.

      It's become more and more of a team sport, "red" vs "blue" and a lot less interesting if you really care about issues besides those that have become "wedge" issues: gay rights, abortion, um.... is there anything else that defines the parties? As important as these things are, they are ultimately social issues driven by the populace, and the government has little long-term influence - in other words, politicians either ride the popular wave or perish. So for things where the government actually has a large impact - defense, trade, civil liberties, taxes, foreign policy, social programs... the parties are largely homogeneous.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Lefties now support corporate censorship by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Zuckerberg is running the show and agrees with your lefty political positions, all of the sudden Corporations have rights and should be allowed to run the elections as long as they support the "correct" positions.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  4. Re:good for them by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ummm, actually it's the left-wing "news curators" who are being the Fascists here...

  5. Despicable by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My politics usually fall on the liberal side, but this is really disgusts me.

    "Trending News"?
    Really? More like FB propaganda.
    The sad thing are the millions who get their "news" from FB.
    FB has the monopoly, and it using it well.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Despicable by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How in the world can you say that Facebook has a monopoly? Just close your account and stop using it - no "service" that it provides cannot be gotten elsewhere. "Events" can be sent with Evite, messages with dozens of different competitors. I have many friends who are not on Facebook and they get along just fine. The only "monopoly" they hold is over the content on their own website, and that's true of all other websites as well.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  6. Re:good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right because today's "safe space", "rape-culture", anti free-speech, socialist youth aren't anything to worry about?

    The wealthy are always going to be a bunch of pricks. But nothing scares the bujeezus out of me more than the monolithic intolerance coming out of youth movements today.

    We should all be deeply concerned by it. Historically speaking, that's where the real danger is. And it starts *exactly like this* every time.

  7. Re:good for them by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly.

    Censorship is censorship. And one should note that FB is censoring news that's rising organically.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  8. Duh by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So does google. Every day all the time. No one is surprised.

    Honestly, we're past this. Facebook et al. provide the romper room world view preferred by the low information crowd and and the rest of us found suitable alternatives long ago.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  9. Re:good for them by JDAustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And another liberal demonstrates that it's just a short road from liberalism to fascism. No ideas allowed that don't resonate in the echo chamber.

  10. Re:good for them by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cause a conservative would never advocate for censorship when it served their purposes, would they?

  11. What else did they suppress? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did they suppress news about Bernie Sanders? Because he was ignored wholesale by the media.

    Sanders won nearly every poll, and yet the media claims Hillary won, even when the poll on their own pages show Sanders winning by a mile.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  12. "Historically", uh? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Historically speaking, that's where the real danger is.

    If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that the "real danger" comes from the "socialist" left wing of politics. You curiously attached the adjective "historically", even though, in the history of democracy, not one single time has any established democracy ever been replaced by a repressive Soviet-style stalinist regime. Not. Once. Ever. The closest you get is when the USSR invaded the baltic states early in WW2, but that's more like a country-to-country invasion that would have happened no matter what the regime in Russia was.

    As observed by Eric Hobsbawn in The Age of Extremes, real dangers to any established democracy have always, without exception come from the right wing of politics: fascism in Italy, nazism in Germany, Franco in Spain, Austro-fascism, Vichy France, various dictatorships in South America, the colonels' regime in Greece, Salazar in Portugal, the Shah in Persia, Suharto in Indonesia.

    And the way dictatorships start is not by censoring news in a private media outlet, however despicable the practice may be; it is by instilling fear in the populace, identifying an enemy (real or imagined), and convincing the masses that they have to give up their rights and trust a heroic leader to gain security and maintain prosperity. Sounds like anyone you know?

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:"Historically", uh? by MatthiasF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do not understand him correctly. He is trying to say that intolerant, political ideologues are dangerous. You rambled off a list of historical events where a bunch of intolerant, political ideologues took power from democracies.

      So, even though you seem to be presenting an opposing view, I think you are actually agreeing with him.

      Ignore the political terms and see the true argument at hand.

      Facebook is allowing intolerant, political ideologues to skew what it's users are seeing in an attempt to grossly influence people into their views. Fearmongering is a method to do the same thing using emotions, what Facebook is doing is way worse since they can stream in the influence in any method they want, any emotion they want and they can do so using heuristics they have garnered from your user activity.

      This is a very dangerous precedent, no matter the beliefs of these ideologues.

    2. Re:"Historically", uh? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Proof you are wrong, sir: Hugo Chávez won all his elections fair and square, according not just to himself but to former US president Jimmy Carter, who was quoted saying "Venezuela probably has the most excellent voting system that I have ever known".

      Chávez' opposition, instead, organised riots, a coup against him, and he was so magnanimous as not to have them sentenced to death (which is undoubtedly what would be done in case anything remotely similar were to occur in the US; it's called treason).

      Just because you don't like his policies, his attitude or his inept successor does not make the man a dictator. And by the way there are still elections scheduled in Venezuela, and it is likely Maduro is going to lose.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  13. Definitely left... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see any right-wing-run social media kicking anyone off because they like marijuana, but a few months ago, Facebook kicked off hundreds of gun groups for vague reasons and banned the admins for 72 hours.

    It put Mewe on the map though...

    IF FB decided to do this with anyone mentioning pot or other left frequenting topics, they would be crucified in the press on a daily basis, but spitting on 2A rights is perfectly OK to them.

  14. Re:This should come as no surprise by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least in the US, conservatives stand for small government. Except on the issue of abortion, and sex education, and recreational substances, and national security, and pornography, and broadcast indecency, and regulation of marriage. Oh, and they insist the government has a duty to issue non-binding religious proclamations telling the people who and how they are supposed to worship and erect tax-funded monuments to their deity. And regulate who is allowed to use which restroom. But aside from all that, they stand for small government.

  15. ANY Single Source balanced news by bbsguru · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The only reason this is the least bit interesting is that there are so many people who consider Facebook a primary news source.
    This Pew Research poll of last summer shows 63% of FB users get their news there (up from 47% two years ago).

    ANYBODY who gets their news from only one source simply doesn't care whether it's true.

    And we all know what they say about news without truth, right?

    It gets repeated...

  16. No one read the article it seems... by mlw4428 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”"

    Ah, so they were censoring sources that were known to be bastions of conservative misinformation. Ah yes, beat the drums.One guy said "THEY WUZ CENSORSING MURICAN PINIONS" and a moderate said "Eh, what we really did was remove sources that we thought were overly biased and replaced with a more neutral source."

    Oh my god, my moral barometer is shifting with the moon phases and you can't explain that. I'm just OUTRAGED. Liburaldumcrats are RAPING my ECHO CHAMBER BY NOT SPREADING MISINFORMATION!

  17. Liberal media? Not so much... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My observation: this election cycle, the news has pushed for Clinton pretty hard. She's pretty center, and right of it if anything. Very corporate, very pro-war, very pro-PATRIOT act, very pro drugwar, etc.

    Sanders was subjected to constant downplay and neg-speak. Everything from the NYT to the Guardian. Sanders is, in my view, actually a fairly liberal candidate.

    To find media support of him (not voter support, there's plenty of that), you have to hit places like Salon, Huffington post, etc.

    Just saying... I don't see the MSM as liberal. Now Fox News... I don't see them so much as conservative as batshit crazy, but that's just me. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  18. Re: good for them by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, you get this straight, my Precious Little Snowflake: one cannot give offense, one can only take it. So un-bunch your panties and recognize that much of that "hate speech" your holding your hands over your ears to avoid hearing may just be another, considered, point of view.