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!
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.
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.
Exactly. It's political theater. The classic case of which was the "Parent's Music Resource Council", where Tipper Gore got then-Senator Al Gore to hold a hearing on lyrics in top-40 songs. Testifying were Frank Zappa, John Denver, and Dee Snider. Fairly epic hearing, as I recall, and I also seem to recall a movie was made of it. . .
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. . . .
Exactly. It's political theater.
Its public discourse and something sadly lacking in this day and age of finger pointing. This is one of the committees functions and is meant to shed light on a topic of interest to the American public. It's unfortunate people like you are to partisan and biased to see the value of this.
Okay, let's get something straight. If FB chooses to show, or chooses not to show a news article under their "Trending" section, it's not abridging your freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to look anywhere else for news. They are under no obligation to provide news that you, in particular, are going to find interesting.
In other words, there is a difference between "Trending" and "Interesting".
Furthermore, having FB access is a privilege, not a right, and FB is free to allow access to all or to ban anyone they feel like, for any reason they feel like, as long as that reason (at least in the U.S.) doesn't violate a protected class. For example, they cannot ban someone based on that person's gender, religion, race, etc., but they can ban you for pretty much any other reason.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
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
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.
You don't understand how false scandals work. No one cares about logic or validity of arguments, the sound of things is the only thing that counts.
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.
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
Because the GOP is all about keeping Big Government out of the choices of Free Citizens.
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.
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.
... 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