Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Offers Political Bias Training In Wake Of Trending Controversy (gizmodo.com)
Michael Nunez, reporting for Gizmodo:Facebook is adding political scenarios to its orientation training following concerns, first reported by Gizmodo, that workers were suppressing conservative topics in its Trending news section. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating officer, announced the change during an interview with conservative leader Arthur Brooks, president of the prominent conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks also attended a private meeting between Facebook executives and prominent conservative leaders following the controversy. "We had an ex-contractor on that team who accused us of liberal bias," Sandberg said during the interview. "Frankly, it rang true to some people because there is concern that Silicon Valley companies have a liberal bias. We did a thorough investigation, and we didn't find a liberal bias."
We did a thorough investigation, and we didn't find a liberal bias.
Biased group looks at self, finds no bias.
Everyone knows that the truth has a strong bias toward whichever political party we happen to support. Any investigation of bias can also take this into account and therefore show it does not exist. However, it also means we can perceive bias and there can be actual bias where others do not intend to be acting in a biased way.
Real communication is about getting past talking points and ad hominem attacks, of course. About questioning our own beliefs and those of our fellow human beings, and building compromises that drive society forward. About questioning our own biases and being able to work with those whose biases are different. The best is almost always the enemy of the good, in large part because we will always find much more disagreement over what is best.
Real lawyers write in C++
in other other news the obama DOJ investigated itself and found no wrongdoing
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Nope.
LOL if that isn't sad and twisted.
So the right to defend yourself and to have the means to do so is not a civil right.
By that reasoning there are no rights.
The second amendment doesn't say that the government has to give you a gun, merely that it cannot prevent you from owning one. You have to buy your own firearm or make it yourself. You wouldn't claim that the first amendment is invalid because presses are not naturally occurring in the universe either, would you?
I'll hazard a guess that you're in favor of universal healthcare (there tends to be a correlation between a person's stance on that and gun rights) so how could you argue that people have a right to that since modern medicine and doctors are not naturally occurring either?
I'm not going to defend UKIP, but do you see the irony in labeling them "an extreme neo-Nazi group" in the comment section of an article about political bias?
I'll grant you they are a far right group with a lot of strong views towards migrants, but from what I can tell, there is no Nazi symbolism on their web site, no call for Jews or other "undesirables" to be exterminated, no stated desire to found a police state dictatorship or any other semblance of recreating the a German-style National Socialist movement.
So they don't seem very neo-Nazi to me, but you seem awfully biased by labeling them as such.