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