Slashdot Mirror
Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation (gizmodo.com)
Michael Nunez, reporting for Gizmodo: The US Senate Commerce Committee -- which has jurisdiction over media issues, consumer protection issues, and internet communication -- has sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg requesting answers to questions it has on its trending topics section. The letter comes after Gizmodo on Monday reported on allegations by one former news curator, who worked for Facebook as a contractor, that the curation team routinely suppressed or blacklisted topics of interest to conservatives. That report also included allegations from several former curators that they used an "injection tool" to add or bump stories onto the trending module. The letter asks that Facebook "arrange for your staff including employees responsible for trending topics to brief committee staff on this issue." The letter was signed by Chairman for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator John Thune (R) from South Dakota.
Dear Senator John Thune (R) from South Dakota, Chairman for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Fuck off. We're a corporate not government entity and can do whatever we want with our property. Remember, you Republicans are are suppose to be way into that.
Hugs and Kisses,
Facebook
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Because if something is being presented as being strictly based on popular interest, but is actually based on private interests, then that is misleading consumers. The other "news" organizations haven't been accused of advertising one methodology for presenting stories but actually using another.
So Fox News is actually "Fair and Balanced"?
They'll investigate Facebook for bias but not Fox News.
They'll investigate Clinton for operating an email server, but not Rice or Powell, who also operated their own email server.
Man. Republicans act like spoiled brats, and somehow we accept this as part of our political system.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
And if Facebook is doing this, so what? Have these Senators not heard of the First Amendment? Or is that part of the constitution only important when opaque Super PACs are supporting Republican candidates?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I find it sad that there is really no balanced, and truly investigative news source these days.
24/7 cable news pushed things very far to where it is JUST about getting eyes and money for those 24/7, and the news is just a commodity that is taken and rather than being reported, is analyzed and opinionized (is this a word?)....and nothing but opinion pieces are put out by both sides of the political compass....although I still see the balance as being still more left than right with all the media out there for the most part.
But for the social media giant FB, I'd think it would be much more interesting to see what the populace opinons ARE...rather than try to guide them by injecting the owners' own political slant into the trends.
But hey, these are PRIVATE companies, and I don't feel it is the governments business, nor a constitutionally mandated power to have them even question what "news" or news-like products the private sector is putting out....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Fox News spews lies morning, noon and night, and no one in Washington raises a peep. Now, this will be become the false scandal of the hour (a new one is needed, as Benghazi is fading, and it looks like the FBI won't deliver the goods on those email servers), so without doubt we'll being hearing about this ad infinitum for months.
Or is that part of the constitution only important when opaque Super PACs are supporting Republican candidates?
Bingo!
Never mind all the free press given to Donald Trump during this election cycle.
1) The MSM tried to ignore Trump, saying he was a "reality TV star" and not a "real politician". You can find those stories in August. That didn't last long, but it existed
2) You your self have just given him "Free Publicity" by mentioning him ...again. Much of the publicity is organic
3) Protesters protesting Trump, create news stories for Trump. Again, the free publicity by protesting Trump.
While I cannot tell if you're Pro or Anti Trump from your post, my guess is that you aren't really in favor. You might want to consider actually standing for someone who is also running. I don't know ANY actual "Pro" Hilary people. Most of the left leaning people I know want Bernie, and the rest will vote for anyone with the (D) after their name.
And while I have addressed Trump here, I am also going to point out, that I will NOT be voting for him, as I don't vote (D) or (R). I'm voting Libertarian. Don't blame me for what happens when people elect the unqualified and the scoundrels to office, I vote, just not for any of them.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Let me suggest that you are not being "Fair and balanced" here.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If action cannot be taken due to that pesky "free speech" thing why are they wasting taxpayer resources "investigating?" To what end? It's not like they're going to highlight the Koch brothers speech, neither all the super PACs, nor Fox News, nor Breitbart, nor Chick-fil-a, nor countless other businesses, news or otherwise that operate and communicate with a certain political lean.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Hillary gets a lot of free press - about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind.
The "free press" Trump gets is pretty much all "look at the insane thing Trump is doing now" or "this new person thinks Trump is Hitler, don't you agree".
How is Trump not the victim still? The only different between Trump and other victims of the press is Trump is skilled in New Judo, turning back attacks to ridicule the attacker. It does not excuse the nature and viciousness of the attacks, even though they are "free" and the end result is more people admiring Trump...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You realize that Trump is a democrat right?
You really think that Trump has some sort of consistent ideology which matches up with one of the 2 major political parties in the country? His strategy is to say whatever it takes to get him through that minute, hour, interview, debate, etc, even if it's in complete opposition to what he said yesterday. He'll also just outright deny saying that he ever said something which he was recorded saying. He doesn't exactly have a consistent ethos which he uses to guide his opinions.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The allegation is corruption on the part of a business.
What the hell does that even mean? Does Facebook have some stated legally-binding policy somewhere which says that they will provide completely unbiased news coverage? Where is the corruption?
Since businesses are not actually people, but only run by them, then wouldn't it make sense if the biases of those people were reflected in the way the company does business? Is it illegal to have bias, or only show news stories that are of a particular brand? Because, if so, then virtually every news organization is guilty.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You have noticed it's an election year, right? This is barely more than political theater.
"How DARE a corporation DO THIS THING!" even though Republicans seem to love letting corporations do pretty much anything and (some) are champions of deregulation....
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
>This is a legitimate action by congress,
No it isn't. Congress is not in the business of "seeing if allegations are correct." Especially when there is no law that could be passed to do anything about it. It's not "corruption", because facebook isn't taking cash to do this. It's a company exercising their (bought and paid for by republican super pac's) right to free speech.
Let me respond to another post of yours.
>Is it the role of Congress to investigate corporate corruption?
No. And again, if there are allegations of corruption, pursue them in the court system. Not a star chmaber.
Buying into the two party system is what ensures that we will stay in this mess forever.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Perhaps, but the Republicans have moved to the extreme, too. You simply have to look at Ronald Reagan to know that what used to be middle-right (and is even held up as conservative), would be too far to the left to run in the GOP now. Raised taxes 19 times, granted amnesty for 3 million illegals, engaged in unconditional talks with the enemy, etc. Not to mention the fact that he was from Hollywood.
I'd say that his attitude is what would get us out of this mess. He looked at the candidates from the two major parties, didn't like any of them, and decided to vote third party. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's the people who say "I'm voting Democrat/Republican because that's how I always vote regardless of who is running" or the people who say "I don't like anyone so I'm protesting by not voting" that I have a problem with. The former allow party affiliation to rule their choice regardless of policy positions. The latter aren't really "protesting" because not voting is essentially invisible to the politicians.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Trump is a populist. There is no true popular party in the US, just two factions run by the elite for the elite. This shows up when candidates try to act like ordinary people: John Kerry's gaffes on the campaign trail as he ate dainties on his bus and avoided commoners' food on the ground, Ted Cruz' inability to speak cogently about basketball, Clinton trying to use the subway, Romney standing on bales of hay shouting that corporations are people too, my friend. The candidates mostly come from the same schools, belong to the same circles, have the same friends and even donors. They have nothing in common with the people.
Trump doesn't really have anything in common with the people either, but he's studied them. The things that seem laughable about him - his appearances on wrestling, his reality TV days - were all far more in touch with the actual demos, the electorate, than anything the other candidates have done for many years. He knows what the other candidates don't, namely how deeply the middle class feels resentment and anger over the loss of their economic status and the enrichment of the mahogany row of the C-level suite. He is a C-level himself, but he gets what the other C-levels don't, namely how the people actually feel.
So, no, he's not a Democrat or a Republican. He's certainly not a conservative. He's not a raging social liberal either. He is a populist, winning support from the middle of the bell-curve by appealing to a sense of injustice resulting from long-term economic trends. His message, every other politician in either party be damned, will be whatever he thinks the people want to hear, centering on their economic status. Immigration? "They take our jobs. They send money to Mexico instead of keeping it in the economy. Build a wall." Fairly consistent message. Ask about something like abortion, and he'll be all over the map, because abortion doesn't have an economic anchor to which to tie his narrative.
Well, this is how I see it as a US citizen, and NOT taking into account what left and right are in the rest of the world, but ONLY as it is perceived in the US.
I'd put Fox News on the right to far right. CNN is just left of center for the most part I think, they used to be a bit further left, but of late they seem to have move very slightly towards center left. MSNBC is far left. I'd say the main network news (ABC, NBC, CBS) are all middle left for the most part.
So, even though Fox News is, like you said...very large (funny how they grab this whole demographic with no real competition, seems someone would like to challenge this?)....the rest of the main cable and mainstream media in the US are on the left for the most part.
Again, this is by US standards...not something of a EU perception of left. We don't care about that, let them live how they want do, but this is US left/right.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........