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.
It's not like ABC News, Fox News, and all the other major news networks don't do the same thing... Why does it matter if Facebook does it? The news industry in the USA has a reputation of being garbage. Why investigate Facebook for keeping with the low standards of everyone else?
Look out, /. editors; you're next.
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
Seriously, I'd expect this kind of story from China when one of the state news agencies wasn't keeping on side.
The only accusation I can think of is false advertising. If FB promoted its "trending" module as driven by an objective algorithm, then they may be culpable for these false claims.
Other than that — there is just "no there there". Not from a legal standpoint, anyway...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If Facebook is a private non-governmental company what does it matter if they decide to do that to the news feed? No body pays for access to the site, so you get what you pay for. If you feel that you are not getting your fullest daily dose of insane right-wing news you can just go to Fox or Brietbart.
When will Facebook finally stop blocking free speech?
It's not because it is a private company that has monopolized on the online speech of the technically challenged majority that they have the right to block free speech.
I don't know who said it first, but he was right: Facebook is an enemy of the freedom of internet.
I know dozens of people whose Facebook has recently been banned because they joined the 'challenge' to insult Erdogan to 'fight' (behind their keyboard) for free speech.
For me not a problem, I wished Facebook banned everyone. A self solving solution to the problem that is Facebook. But unfortunately, most people only know Facebook and have no clue how to 'use the internet with their friends' without it. I've had desperate friends on the phone who can no longer access their Facebook which they also need for their hobbies and sometimes even their jobs.
Lest we forget the Democrats are doing the same thing.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/d...
Though all news-sources profess objectivity, we know, they are run by fallible humans, who are bound to act on their own impulses and agendas.
Facebook, however, implied — or, maybe, even explicitly stated — that its "trending" module is driven by an objective computer-algorithm.
These claims appear false now, which may open them to legal charges of false advertising.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The facebook contractors were told to block conservative stories (whatever that means these days) and these GOP Senators are making a big deal out of it - to get votes and continue the myth that the media has a Liberal (whatever that means these days) bias.
And of course there is going to be a big chunk of their constituency that will fall for this complete and utter waste of Senate time.
Idiocracy is a documentary you know.
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. . . .
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.
Surely GOP politicians, of all people, will recognize that unlike IRS, Facebook is a PRIVATE CORPORATION which can rate trending topics by whatever criteria it chooses, including Political Correctness. If wingnuts don’t “like” it, they can use some other network, or better yet start their own.
Yes, most news outlets pick and choose what to report on, and all of them have a partisan bent (which is nice to hear you admit since so many on Slashdot claim most news stations are "objective").
However is does seem like there is an important and insidious difference. While news stations choose what they THINK is news, Facebook KNOWS what is news because of links people are sharing and what people are talking about - and knowing what is important to many people, they purposefully exclude any items that are important to lots of conservatives.
On a site that is supposed to represent the curation of your interests and friends, it seems like rather a betrayal to bury something that you and other people like you find important.
I would say the same thing regardless of what was being suppressed. I could see and agree with Facebook injecting at times news it thought was important and should be more widely seen (even if that itself had a partisan bent) but it's quite a lot different to censor the spread of something popular because of ideology.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just filtering out the obviously insane stories would make Conservatives angry, and in this case it seems like they're upset that Facebook did them a favor, and didn't document the insane things the far-right extremists say at CPAC.
There's no satisfying Conservatives. They insist on their own "facts" that come from propaganda outlets, and they've been trained to be outraged on command. Even if we gave up all morality and met these lunatics in the middle, allowing them to harm some % of the vulnerable people they hate, they'd just be emboldened and make ever more extreme demands. All you can do with that crowd is to marginalize them, and arrest them when they act on their violent fantasies.
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.
Having spent some time watching conservative news I can imagine that this apparent "bias" is just a matter of fact checking. Is it bias to omit articles saying President Obama isn't an American citizen. Nope, it's just fact checking. Yet, there were countless conservative news stories touting this lie. And this isn't the only issue along these lines.
And I despise Republicans. And Democrats.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
What they do is not illegal. There is no requirement that Facebook or anyone else present a 'fair and balanced' story. Facebook certainly does a better job than Fox news does.
If I were them, I would simply state "You are asking about legal actions that Facebook considers to be proprietary corporate secrets. We will be happy to comply - after you first publicize Fox and MSNBC's own methodology for presenting stories."
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Do they not have anything better to do? What's wrong, is Bengazi not getting sufficient attention anymore, so now it's time for a new witchhunt?
Fox has been doing far worse for years, why arn't they being investigated?
Many on this thread are missing the point. Facebook is a private company and they are entitled to promote whatever they consider "news". They are no different in that regard from Fox News and CNN and the New York Times. Each of which produces its own version of the news, designed to push whatever political agenda they happen to have. This should be obvious to anyone that watches or reads content from those outlets. The exact same story will get reported in a different way, sometimes slightly different, sometimes completely different. Other stories are simply not reported.
What makes it different for Facebook is that they claim their new stories appear as a result of "trending". Meaning that they are the most talked about, most "liked", most "shared" stories and that there is some fancy algorithm behind it. When it appears that these stories appear in the trending section based solely upon the opinion of a small group of editors at Facebook. Fox and CNN and the NYT make no such claims. It just so happens that conservative stories were suppressed but it would no less evil had it been liberal stories.
The point is that Facebook has lied and mislead its users. Sadly, Facebook has a long history of this. It is one of the reasons that I don't use Facebook. I simply don't trust them. Not with my data and not to deliver an unbiased news feed.
...opinion shows such as O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly or Hannity... are incorrectly included as news reporting by many folks who clearly are out to get Fox [News].
Right. Notably, the programming directors of Fox News.
Obviously they would only be concerned with facebook's business once they have already resolved all the other more pressing matters that face our country. It's great to see this new level of productivity from our congress.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What incentive does FB have? Each employee that fails to respond can be held in Contempt of Congress and spend up to a year in jail, plus a fine of up to $1000. How many of them do you think are really going to risk that time in jail?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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
The real problem here is accountability. It appears that there is none, not in the private sector nor public. You started to see some of this in a touch of revolt with exit polls and media outlets being surprised by the intent and whit of the American public and the data they (the public) were communicating. It appeared to me that the public got wise to the tradition of entrance and exit polls and to an extent misled the media! We are at a tipping point with all of this. My fear is that it is irreversible and what we should be trying to protect may in fact already be gone...
Because the GOP is all about keeping Big Government out of the choices of Free Citizens.
If a baker has to make a gay cake, then Facebook has to post conservative news.
Why does the phrase "go pound sand" jump to mind?
Since this is way more important than filling the seat for the Supreme Court, I say more power to them. " Supreme Court nominations, and you wont believe #13" is just as 'newsy' as anything on Fox, CNN and Facebook. I am sure that click bait has been on all the sites mentioned, as well as all the far left and right. All the sites everywhere massage their trending topics.
Here's the reality. Clinton and Trump are both historically disliked.
How can you be so dense as to conflate results with actions?
Clinton and Trump are, yes, both widely disliked.
But the media is mostly soft on Hillary, and very harsh on Trump. The *reality* is disconnected from what the media attempts to MAKE reality.
Now it is true that thanks to Sanders, there have been some more widely reported negatives about Hillary. But it's still been VERY soft compared to Hillary.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can't imagine what laws the GOP thinks Facebook has broken. You wonder how anyone could have made Congress even less popular than it was under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but somehow Republicans have managed to leverage rank stupidity like this to accomplish that feat.
Will the GOP congress propose that there be equal-time rules for websites? Is there a floor beneath which the GOP will not sink? Stay tuned. The convention is still months away.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Formerly ReaganBook.com:
http://www.freedombook.com/
They're all about free speech, so they're going to operate without the vulgarity and bullying inherent in other social media sites!
That's exactly what the courts do today. Decide the truth of matters. Do you suggest we should eliminate the court system, and leave the decisions of guilt, innocence, and punishment to private entities?
No doubt the courts are quite corrupt, however, there is some ability for oversight. This is considerably less true for private entities.
I, for one, would not mind if a news organization was required to only print factual matter, rather than speculation and opinion. I see no reason that the opinion of a newspaper editor or reporter has any more validity than that of my neighbor, and the circulation of the media ensures that said opinion has considerably more impact, which I consider both unfair and unjustified, and obviously so.
Facts, and nothing but the facts -- that'd be very nice indeed.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Because more and more even supposedly legit news organizations are giving more and more control to the Facebook feed (so they can cut even more staff), thus the baskets being winnowed down to one. Dan Gillmor follows this slow-motion disaster fairly closely.
But more to the point: whether they're named Hearst, McClatchy, Murdoch, or Zuckerburg, billionaires cannot be trusted to tell the truth, the Whole truth, and Nothing but the truth because money.
... The Fairness Doctrine.
Ever since the Reagan administration stopped enforcing it the idea of equal time for opposing viewpoints has been a joke. Watch the Sunday morning talking head shows; it's one Republican ideologue after another. The only alternative is a whole panel full of right-wing nut jobs shouting down the lone centrist or liberal panelist. Read the OpEd page of pretty much every newspaper in the U.S. It's the same diet of right-wing talking points. Now that the Republicans find themselves on the other side of that situation, it becomes something that requires Congressional hearings. Facebook needs to loudly and publicly remind them of this thing called the First Amendment and tell them to get stuffed.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
They should be investigated too. Are they using their unlimited mod points to -5 troll conservative postings? They want to know.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
and that matter, get rid of all the cruft on the right quarter of the screen. the no-interest-DIE! section of the screen.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I imagine the only argument for government investigation and/or intervention is if Facebook made a false representation by claiming it was accurately reflecting measurable trends when really it was knowingly and deliberately distorting the outcome.
I suspect that Facebook did kind of imply that, and it was a deceptive practice of sorts, but at the same time I think it unlikely that actual law-breaking can be proved.
The US Senate Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over internet communication?? That's sick! How is it possible that we let the government meddle with a kids' hangout? Absolutely insane!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And users of Facebook will never hear about this story.
Political bias? They should get everything done to them that Fox News got done to it - political bias in a news organization is always unacceptable. I forgot though... how *did* the Fox News investigation go? Also: I had no idea Facebook was a news organization. This is why I come to Slashdot: the learnin'.
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
There are a lot of Democrats on Fox News also.
Heraldo, Juan Williams, Kristen Powers to name a few. Roger Ailes is known to be a democrat.
By contrast MSNBC only has Morning Joe who only makes headlines for criticizing Republicans. Same thing with David Brooks at the NY Times.
No, really, I'm not. I'm just of the opinion that were the system working even close to how it should, that such law would cause any judge above the level of drooling moron to look at it and say "This law is ambiguous. Charges dismissed" rather than "I'll shoot from the hip here and legislate from the bench", which is, IMHO anyway, basically the act of someone trying to destroy the actual basis of law.
Yes. However, the ruling can be "this law does not cover this case because it is unclear. Case dismissed."
No, it really isn't. What it does is infest the legal system with a bunch of crap no legislator ever put on paper, crap coming from someone not elected to a position intended to create legislation.
The only people that consistently benefit from this are the lawyers. That ought to tell you all you need to know, too. The people, in the general sense, are abused by it.
When law is unclear, it ought to be sent back to the legislative body for a do-over. Not have some random judge's "interpretation" stuck to it like gum on your shoe.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.