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.

Comments

So what?

[PublicSchill]

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?

Re:So what?

[pak9rabid]

Well, if Facebook is smart, they'll bring this up and drag the rest of the fuckers through the mud with them.

Re:So what?

[__aaclcg7560]

Because it made the headlines that Facebook may have a policy to suppress conservative views as a company strategy. The confirms the Republican narrative that only their views are being censored by the mainstream media, giving politicians the opportunity to play the victim game. Never mind all the free press given to Donald Trump during this election cycle.

Re:So what?

[Mycroft-X]

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.

It would be like a polling organization saying it took a random phone survey of 1,000 likely voters to get its results, but then was caught manipulating their definition of the term "likely" to distort their resulting data. They generally like to leave the distortion to the data interpreters, not bake it into the data itself.

Re:So what?

[ausekilis]

Why investigate Facebook for keeping with the low standards of everyone else?

Because millions of people don't sign into the websites of those news agencies each day to be fed the agenda of those organizations.

Advertising works. The message being sent to millions of people worldwide is curated by a handful of people under one organization that isn't the gov't. This is them saying "Bullshit! that's our job!"

Re:So what?

[Spy Handler]

Because it's well understood that the stories reported by Fox News and NBC News are whatever Fox and NBC deem newsworthy. They don't pretend that the stories they've picked are "Trending" or "Shared" amongst regular users.

Basically they're being dishonest. If Facebook wants to push its political viewpoint then they should just come right out and say so. Don't pretend it's all done by an algorithm based on only popularity.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:So what?

[Tablizer]

Why investigate Facebook for keeping with the low standards of everyone else?

Because it's Congress and they can investigate anything for the sheer hell of it.

Get the popcorn; it's political theater folks!

Re:So what?

[whoever57]

Because it made the headlines that Facebook may have a policy to suppress conservative views as a company strategy.

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?

Re:So what?

[cayenne8]

If the Facebook thing is true, I personally fine it reprehensible, but it IS a private company, and perfectly within its bounds to do this type of thing.

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....

Re:So what?

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:So what?

[whoever57]

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.

Let me suggest that you are not being "Fair and balanced" here.

Re:So what?

[Nethemas the Great]

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.

Re:So what?

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:So what?

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:So what?

[SuricouRaven]

Even if it's true though, it isn't corruption. It's not illegal for a company to decide what to post on their own website, or to manually adjust their algorithms in real time. I'm sure facebook would do that at a minimum to prevent embarassing topics from hitting the top, like openly racist columns or conspiracy theories.

Re:So what?

[Kierthos]

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....

Re:So what?

[fropenn]

I like Sanders, but he's a good example of the point I was trying to make. The act of running for president has pressured and / or forced him to do things that he otherwise would not have done - like calling Hillary Clinton "unqualified" to be president. And we all make mistakes and have regrets, but to me this is the very nature of the act of running for president and the intense pressure and scrutiny it produces - it would do the same to me, and likely to you, too.

Re:So what?

[humptheElephant]

I find that all of them don't report what the really important things. Slashdot at least will often have something important while most of the news is just a pitch for some product. I don't find it slanted to the left at all, MSNBC doesn't have the power that Fox News has. I find the supposed left wing MSNBC a little to the right, but we all have different opinions. We don't read much in the news of South and Central America and what our government has done to those countries. We don't get reporting on why Iran hates us so much because of Eisenhower's interference in a duly elected government back in the 1950s. We hear about Syrian refugees not being welcome but who in the hell caused them to be refugee? What about Iraq? It was our foreign policies that contributed to these problems.

Re:So what?

[amicusNYCL]

What I do know is that if there is a "credible" allegation of corruption (whatever that means) that Congress can and should investigate it.

Maybe they can start with themselves.

Re:So what?

[Altus]

Buying into the two party system is what ensures that we will stay in this mess forever.

Re:So what?

[orgelspieler]

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.

Re:So what?

[Jason Levine]

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.

FB isn't even a news source

[DudeTheMath]

Look out, /. editors; you're next.

Re:FB isn't even a news source

[geek]

Look out, /. editors; you're next.

Zuckerberg has stated manyy times that he wants Facebook to be your only news source.

False advertising?

[mi]

Why does it matter if Facebook does it?

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.

Re:False advertising?

[coinreturn]

I see no explanation on FB of what "trending" means.

In denial much? Right bloody here:

Trending shows you a list of topics and hashtags that have recently spiked in popularity on Facebook.

This undeniably implies objectivity. Depending on how (un)charitable you wish to be, it also explicitly promises it...

No it most certainly does not. You purposely ignored this particular line:

The topics you see are based on a number of factors including engagement, timeliness, Pages you've liked and your location.

It DOES not say anything like "objectivity." The "number of factors" gives them all the leeway to put whatever the fuck they want in there.

just whining rightwingers claiming to be victims

Well, they certainly were victims here. The only question remaining is whether this was legal or not.

Nope, no victims. Just more whining.

Re:What is the alleged crime?

[Salgak1]

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. . .

Partisian nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 The Senate

[fahrbot-bot]

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

Typical Republican Bull

[tekrat]

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.

There is a difference

[SuperKendall]

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.

Are you serious?

[ilsaloving]

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?

There is "free press" and there is "free press"

[SuperKendall]

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...

The Madness Spreads

[SuperKendall]

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.

Because Trump hasn't made them look stupid enough

[PopeRatzo]

Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation

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.