Slashdot Mirror


Mark Zuckerberg: 'No Evidence' Facebook Staff Suppressed Stories With Conservative Viewpoints (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg has issued a statement in response to the controversy alleging that Facebook staff intentionally prevented stories with a conservative viewpoint from appearing in the site's Trending Topics section. "We take this report very seriously and are conducting a full investigation to ensure our teams upheld the integrity of this product," Zuckerberg writes on Facebook. "We have found no evidence that this report is true. If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it." Zuckerberg says he will invite "leading conservatives and people from across the political spectrum" to discuss the matter in the coming weeks, with the aim of having a "direct conversation about what Facebook stands for and how we can be sure our platform stays as open as possible." Earlier today, more evidence surfaced to support Gawker's two recent reports that claimed editors manipulate the trending news. Facebook published a blog post explaining how Trending Topics on its platform works, insisting there's no discrimination against sources of any political origin.

8 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.

  2. Re:Why is it important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It matters because they claimed that "trending" was determined by computer algorithms that analyzed what people were actually talking about, but that turned out to be a lie: they were instead determined by people, who necessarily have a bias.

    It matters because it artificially shapes how people see the world. Facebook isn't just "a news site" it's also a site that - in theory - shows you how your friends view the world. Except it turns out that conservative views were being censored on Facebook.

    They're not alone. Anyone who's seen how Twitter deals with its trends (which are also conceptually algorithmic but in reality are clearly curated as they'll block certain things from trending) and the new Twitter Moments feature will notice a distinct liberal bias there, as well.

    If Facebook were like Slashdot where the entire point was people were explicitly picking certain stories, no one would care. But Facebook pretended that the "trending" feature was showing what people were actually talking about on Facebook, and that turned out to be false. It was instead a curated news feed with a liberal bias.

  3. Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence? by zugmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey... if it's good enough for the police it should be good enough for Facebook, right?

  4. Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I hope not. Individual rights are important. Without them, citizens end up receiving inhuman treatment in manufactured 'class struggles' as we've seen in the various 'people's republics' during the cold war.

    I am confused by your choice of words and lack of context. You meant that as long as people have free speech, they can criticize the flaws in others' statements? That's a good thing. This right is needed for democracy to have a shot at functioning.

    These days both sides are supporting fake 'religious liberty.' The neocons support christians as they always have, and the left supports muslims, even when they rape women. I guess islamophobia is a worse sin than rape in the oppression olympics.

  5. Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need to immediately forward your message to the head of the RNC.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  6. Re:Zuckerman suppresses evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And Chelsey Clinton is giving speeches about how her mother will finally outlaw guns now that Scalia is dead and there is an opening on the Supreme Court.

    I don't think you can call it a conspiracy if they are telling people that is their plan.
    Video Feel free to ignore the news article with it, just watch the video.

  7. Re: Zuckerman suppresses evidence? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 5, Informative
    Regardless of what some dickhead wrote on Wikipedia, that's not what happened. Existing tax exempt liberal groups were investigated for violations of law, and either cleared or charged at the end of the investigation. Newly-formed conservative groups were subjected to "investigation" which were designed to be onerous and unending, thus preventing them from getting tax exemption in the first place. The conservative groups were "suspected of" being prone to violate laws WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and thus were no longer in force.

    Lumping the two together is a red herring used by the IRS and its liberal defenders to cover up the fact that the Obama Administration used the machinery of government to harass their political opponents.

  8. Found nothing against FB principals by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it."

    So, it if wasn't against Zuckerman's principals, it wasn't wrong.