Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate GOP Launches Inquiry Into Facebook's News Curation (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the drawing-the-line dept.

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.

24 of 357 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by PublicSchill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:So what? by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    2. Re:So what? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:So what? by Mycroft-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:So what? by ausekilis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!"

    5. Re:So what? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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"?

    7. Re:So what? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:So what? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:So what? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    10. Re:So what? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:So what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    12. Re:So what? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    13. Re:So what? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    14. Re:So what? by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    15. Re:So what? by humptheElephant · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    16. Re:So what? by Altus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    17. Re:So what? by orgelspieler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. FB isn't even a news source by DudeTheMath · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  3. False advertising? by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Partisian nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Dear The Senate by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. . . .
  6. Typical Republican Bull by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Are you serious? by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?