Slashdot Mirror
Internal Docs Show Human Intervention at Almost Every Stage Of Facebook's News Operation (theguardian.com)
More evidence has surfaced to support Gawker's two recent reports that claimed editors manipulate the trending news and a few other aspects on Facebook. The Guardian, citing leaked documents it obtained, reports that the topics one sees on Facebook are determined on a number of factors including "engagement, timeliness, Pages you've liked and your location." From the report: But the documents show that the company relies heavily on the intervention of a small editorial team to determine what makes its "trending module" headlines -- the list of news topics that shows up on the side of the browser window on Facebook's desktop version. The company backed away from a pure-algorithm approach in 2014 after criticism that it had not included enough coverage of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, in users' feeds. The guidelines show human intervention -- and therefore editorial decisions -- at almost every stage of Facebook's trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people.Sam Biddle of Gawker, wrote: Never trust what a company tells you, on/off record -- FB straight up lied to Recode last year. He adds: unless they're under oath a company like Facebook has every incentive to lie about how it operates. It's not illegal to lie to a reporter!"
Update: 05/12 20:49 GMT by M : Facebook has published a blog post in which it explains how Trending Topics on its platform works. The company insists that there is no discrimination against sources of any political origin.
Update: 05/12 20:49 GMT by M : Facebook has published a blog post in which it explains how Trending Topics on its platform works. The company insists that there is no discrimination against sources of any political origin.
Whose internal docs, and whose news operation? The Slashdot headline lacks any clue that the subject is Facebook.
They're not exactly the highest professional or unbiased quasi news entity either.
Facebook can place on their website whatever the hell they like. They are not a monopoly subject to government oversight. Facebook will not be testifying before a committee on this manner.
Napoleon was the best general in the world because he bought the Newspapers. Propaganda is a weapon of war and a way to shape society and opinion.
Manipulating trending topics is essentially a violation of the neutrality that people expect from their data providers. (And that we require from common carriers. Facebook is basically a common carrier at this point--how many hundreds of millions of messages, articles, advertisements, events, etc... go through Facebook?)
Real lawyers write in C++
If you think FB is unfairly biased, just buy myspace and turn it into Fox News.
Never mind their "Trending Topics" garbage, which I completely ignore anyway; what the heck his driving their "People you might know" friend suggestions?
I don't know any of those people and I don't want to know them, so fuck off facebook.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Who was deciding that not "enough" people were posting about it to make the newsfeeds....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
.
Facebook is an entertainment company, not a news company. Facebook's business goal is to ~encourage~ its users to visit the site as often as possible and stay as long as possible.
It is completely and wholly Facebook's prerogative how Facebook accomplishes its business goals, with legal parameters, of course.
So long as Facebook is not breaking the law, I say that the complainers should take their whining somewhere else.
And to those idiots in Congress who are wasting public money on this, why in the world are you messing with facebook when the good people of Flint, MI still cannot drink the water?
Is this really a shock? Facebook is not really a news organization. At best, the "Trending" section is a news aggregator, and will all such aggregations, decisions are made to what gets prominence, and what doesn't.
Hell, ask any newspaper editor. Most of them will have a story or three of wishing they had more than one front page per edition because of multiple big events in the same day, and likewise, they'll have stories where technically speaking nothing big happened, but they still had to have something on the front page.
Is it a shock that humans are involved in the FB decision making process? No, not really.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The way I see it, the FB editors were... Doing their freakin jobs!
Maybe Slashdot editors should take note
Are you attempting to imply that they lied about Facebook? Are you attempting to claim that Facebook lying to customers has no impact? Are you trying to claim that because one person did something wrong they can never point out that another did something wrong? Are you trying to claim that Facebook is innocent? What is the point, perhaps simply a cheap attempt at karma whoring?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
They're not suppressing your feed (well, no more than they screw it up anyway what with posts from friends that you somehow never see), but they are supposedly suppressing conservative topics in the "Trending" section. Maybe.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Facebook promised it's customers that it was providing an unbiased aggregation service based on customers posting stories. Since they actually silenced stories they did not want to trend, and inserted those they did, while claiming "we are just an unbiased aggregate", they broke the law.
Propaganda is a huge issue which Congress _should_ be trying to address. Some of these actions are treasonous (word chosen intentionally, investigate it's use).
You not caring that people are being brainwashed and that people are attempting to undermine the laws of the land is a different issue all together. A Bill Engval quote comes to mind..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Sounds like Facebook.com is best accessed from Brainwash.com
I don't trust any single source for news. Why would anyone think that they were getting unfiltered news from a website like Facebook?
I know folks are going to have to report to a Congressional Committee over this, but why is this a story? NBC leans heavily liberal, Fox leans heavily conservative, CNN does something which only people in airports actually see.
Facebook may get sued by those who pay for advertisements on their website, which may be fair, based on the wording of contracts.
Is it just because Gawker is screaming about this at the moment, that this is news? There is no unbiased news anymore, why does this shock or confuse anyone?
a public company has an obligation to its shareholders to make as much money as possible.
That is completely wrong, and it's sad that so many people like yourself think that is at all what the shareholder/company relationship is about.
The company only has a duty to run the company well, which means whatever the company wants it to mean. You could have a company whose primary goal is, for example, to use only recycled material to build birdhouses. They would make more money by using cheaper material, but that is against the company goal...
The shareholder, meanwhile, may invest for a thousand different reasons. Sure they would like to make money but often they are investing in a company whose mission they agree with, even if possibly they could make more money investing elsewhere.
Regardless, again the company does NOT HAVE A DUTY to make "as much money as possible". They can do whatever they like, and larger issues they put up for a vote for shareholders to help decide - but that means if the motivations of the shareholders align with those running the company, the choices could very well be ones that do not "make the most money". Since most public companies have the majority of stock held by a few key people, in fact MOST choices companies make are not "to make the most money", they are about strategic positioning to help the company grow or better do what the company was built to do.
Until you understand this core fact, you will never understand the actions of companies nor indeed make much money in the market.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, everything about Donald Trump having a negative slant might be no manipulation at all. I mean, think about it.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The outrage here is humans taking the jobs of algorithms?
I understand that Europeans cannot see that the "left-right" divide in the U.S. is completely different than it is in Europe. In Europe the divide is about HOW to use government authority, both sides agree that the government has the authority. In the U.S., the divide is over how much authority the government actually has. A key to understanding this is the 2nd Amendment. In Europe, the government has an absolute monopoly on the use of violence (at least that is the principle under which its governments operate). In the U.S., the 2nd Amendment essentially states that the government does NOT have monopoly on the use of violence, the people have the option of resorting to violence if they are dissatisfied with the job the government is doing (at least that is the theory).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Hold on a second, this whole controversy suggests that people actually pay attention to "Trending" on Facebook. Whenever I see this mentioned I have to remind myself that this "feature" even exists. Then I remember it is that section on Facebook that has all of those annoying "headlines" that never have anything I am even vaguely interested in.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Anyone who uses Facebook as their primary news source deserves all they get.
Conservatives claim to support these things: small government, free market/capitalism, strong defense, individual responsibility, pro-life, and prioritizing the interests of the US. Many also claim to be motivated by religion, particularly Christianity. Rural populations tend to be conservative.
Liberals claim to support these things: big government, social welfare, reduced military, social and environmental responsibility, pro-choice, reducing oppression of minorities, and prioritizing an open and peaceful coexistence with other nations and peoples. Liberals tend to prefer a non-religious, or cross-religious, view of morality over a single strict religious interpretation. Urban areas tend to be liberal.
I use the word "claim" because you can find several cases where each group tends to switch their views, and both groups are incredibly inconsistent at times. And a very large number of Americans back their party (Republicans and Democrats) over a particular political spectrum, changing the definition of each side of the political fence as the parties evolve.
But most of all, they just like fighting. A proposed law from one of the political groups is often denounced by the other before it is even read, and then later the same law might be backed by the second group and then shot down by the first.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
All journalism has openly given up on what we might have romanticized about being properly balanced news. You can't get enough eyes to get enough advertisers to run a 24 hour news station without padding people's fragile ego's by speaking directly into their echo chamber.
"Who was deciding that not "enough" people were posting about it to make the newsfeeds....?" That would be the black lies matter cabal.
Well, they don't seem to have any problem declaring your phone "an instrument of interstate commerce" because a phone call could go over state lines; they don't seem to have any problems raiding a farm because the crop could be transported over state lines. Etc.
So I think it quite clear that they should be equally able to justify, and in the same manner, the fact that Flint's water could go over state lines.
But of course, they'll only do things that serve them, the welfare and health of the people aren't exactly first-line considerations. No, there are more important things to do: lobbyists waiting in the anteroom, insider information on stocks to be considered, after-office speech agreements to be negotiated, and of course, for the Republican demographic of the ruling oligarchy's minions, the crafting of yet another useless attempt to block the ACA in order to pander to the very people who decided... they'd rather have Trump. Ooops. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You might also try to find where claiming one is an unbiased aggregator is in itself against the law.
Might I remind you of the Fox News slogan? Here 'tis: "Fair and Balanced"
Now please excuse me, I have to go wash my mouth out with something less toxic. Like cyanide.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Republicans are big proponents of small government, unless it somehow involves reproductive organs, then they have to have a law about everything. Oftentimes to "protect the children".
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The guidelines show human intervention -- and therefore editorial decisions -- at almost every stage of Facebook's trending news operation, a team that at one time was as few as 12 people.
My god, next there'll be humans writing the articles! Where will the madness end?!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I'm shocked I say, simply shocked!
While I'm pro-choice (and many social conservatives are definitely not free market, small-government) there is something unique about terminating an embryo. A better example will be legalizing drugs - which both social conservatives and progressives fail on.
We have the ludicrous scenario where people claim a right to terminate a fetus (on the grounds that they own their own bodies) and yet these same people say a woman cannot decide whether or not to smoke weed, or wear a seat belt or whatever.
On this issue progressives are truly more f-ed up than social conservatives.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
a) am not surprised, and b) don't care.
Don't the nordic social democrat counties have small national governments but large local governments? And aren't they all smaller both geographically and population wise than many US states? Norway for example is smaller than Montana and has half the population of New York city.
Every now and then, technology intersects strongly with politics, such as when restrictions on information or technology or abuse of either are enshrined in law. Such is the case with surveillance, global warming, GMO labelling, workplace non-discrimination, and many other topics that hold huge interest among a large number of technology-oriented people.
When there is news in such areas, Slashdot would be remiss not to report on them. You may not like the majority opinion in such threads (and indeed the majority often has it ass backwards), but the reports are often right on topic as News for Nerds.
The solution for your lack of interest in such topics is so simple that I'm surprised that it didn't occur to you: just don't read them.
The real world and news is not purely black or purely white, and your claim that it can always be true/false is simply ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as your misrepresentation of what Facebook did and does with "news". Facebook does not make news, they provide stories to people allegedly based on what people are interested in. That is their sales pitch for people to use their aggregate service, and it's even named "WHAT'S TRENDING". Quite different from "WHAT WE WENT TO TREND PRETEND IT DOES".
That said, when I looked at your post history I started to smell a sockpuppet.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Oh, hadn't you heard? Trump is now saying it was "just a suggestion" to ban Muslims. Because, now that he's ridden that wave of xenophobia and stupidity to be the presumptive nominee, he's (shockingly) walking back some of his stupidities to seem slightly more moderate.
But don't worry, it's Trump. He'll say something amazingly stupid tomorrow to make up for it.
Just wait until his base finds out he isn't a conservative. That'll be fun.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Republicans don't care what you do with your reproductive organs. But when you're hosting another human being, we think that human being deserves some legal protection. Yes, that literally is to "protect the children".
To be fair, some Republicans do care what you do with your reproductive organs. But it is unrelated to abortion; it's about sexual activities and gender identity. And they don't speak for all Republicans or conservatives.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
46 US states are smaller than Montana and 24 have less than half the population of New York City.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
And actually, if Norway were a US state, it would not add to either total as it would be larger than Montana in area and larger than half the population of NYC.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Well, okay, that's fair. But you're talking about 30% of the party there, so it's not accurate to say "Republicans think this..."
If the purpose of the second amendment were to allow armed opposition to government, it wouldn't refer to 'a well-regulated militia.' At best it might be to allow a state to resist an attempt by the federal government to impose a law highly unpopular with the state (as happened once), but that's still just one division of government fighting another - it's not an individual right to armed rebellion.
It is an individual right to the means of violence..that is, it is an acknowledgement that the government ought not have a monopoly on violence. That is a different thing than being about armed opposition to government. It means that an individual is recognized to have the right to use violence to protect themselves from violence
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Algorithm only:
- Ten coolest cat photos of 2015
- Scientists prove vaccines cause autism
- The global warming hoax debunked.
- See celebrity sex tapes online!
- Obama's secret communist manifesto revealed.
- 30 Signs That An Eastern European Girl Isn’t Relationship Material
- Russia's nuclear ambitions and how to prepare with our five-gallon soup buckets.
- Is the dress blue or gold?
- Why the homosexual mafia is after YOUR child!
There's a reason facebook has a human team moderating the feed. Without it you'd get what people are actually doing online, and people are stupid. It'd be a mixture of inane tripe, conspiracy theories and scams, topped off by the occasional article based on blatant sexism, racism or homophobia and, of course, a bit of porn.
But of course the liberal side of the bunch would NEVER issue press releases or spin anything. Right. Are you even listening to yourself?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And that, in turn, goes back to the middle of the last century, when broadcasting corporations were sold the right to use the public airwaves for only a tiny fraction of the true cost. All they had to do was agree to provide a minimal level of public interest programming. That was news. Ever since, they've steadily monetized the news programs themselves, and studiously avoided savage coverage of things that might upset their advertisers.
I doubt there will ever be another Viet Nam, where broadcast news programs brought the war right into the living rooms of Nixon's "Silent Majority", and proved to them that the hippies, peaceniks and draft dodgers were actually telling the truth, while the government and its corporate owners weren't.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Suck my cock, troll.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Would the originators of the Internet have ever thought that Facebook would become the pinnacle of online communication?
'O brave new world, / That has such people in 't!"'
This is just projection. In any event, to claim the party that holds both houses of Congress and the vast majority of governorships needs to do this or that to ever be "relevant again" is pretty delusional when you think about it.
Let good algorithms work and they provide the users results from their input. This may result in things like Tay, or it may result in actually getting results from the filter bubble you're trying to build.
Both does not support injecting sponsored / endorsed content. So some human needs to add this, like paying for ads and selecting a target group. For political action, some facebook employees need to fix the trends.
Twitter at least adds a "sponsored by" to bought "trends" (not only tweets), facebook is not that transparent.
FTFY YMMD
the president is not a king.
Typical neocon thinks fetuses should be protected and have the same rights as humans who are born. Typical Libtard thinks 11 million illegal aliens [spelled NONCITIZENS] have the same rights as citizens. Both groups of extremists should all go some place, far away, and choke themselves. Just saying.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
...continues to call itself "News", Facebook can do pretty much whatever it likes. Doubters might want to take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOKVw2TcBs
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Lying isn't illegal, so why mention that? I mean who even thinks lying is illegal?