22 ms·
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kaendfinger 11y agoRegardless of political opinion, I think it's disgraceful to only show biased views.
- elthran 11y agoI disagree - It's a private company's prerogative to display whatever content they wish - A competitor could choose to suppress liberal articles. As long as they are not breaking any relevant speech laws, then I see nothing wrong with their actions. If we shut down all biased media, all we'd really be left with is the BBC (although a large number of people would disagree here)
- kaendfinger 11y agoI see your point. They are a private company, they have their right to display what they wish, just as we have the right to not view it.
- jrcii 11y ago> It's a private company's prerogative to display whatever content they wish True, but it could be argued that users are reasonable in assuming that Facebook is a neutral or automatic platform, not manually manipulating content to achieve political goals. If that is true the ethics of misleading millions of people is at best questionable.
- stdbrouw 11y agoIt is perfectly possible to affirm that a company has the legal right to do whatever they wish, while at the same time arguing that you find it disgraceful. Specifically with regards to Facebook, they position themselves as a platform and not as a publisher, so it's not that strange that they're being held to the standards that we expect from a platform, of which neutrality is a big one.
- jscheel 11y agoThey absolutely have a right to display what they want. However, just as Fox News gets slammed for claiming to be "fair and balanced", Facebook should be shown the same contempt for claiming their news is in any way an actual representation of what is trending on Facebook. They have a right to do it, but that doesn't mean users have to be ok with it. Furthermore, I would much rather have a biased editorial process that is run by people that have at least been exposed to so form of media ethics, than a bunch of tech managers telling recent Ivy-league graduates what to curate.
- BaryonBundle 11y agoSince when is grace relevant at all? It's pretty apparent how effective Fox News is, graceful or not.
- kaendfinger 11y agoThat is partially what I meant. They are deceptive, yet effective, just like Fox News.
- djur 11y ago"Disgraceful" is not the inverse of "graceful" in modern English, the former meaning "shameful" while the latter means "elegant".
- kelukelugames 11y agoDo you believe facebook does this? It's a Gawker article.
- kaendfinger 11y agoIt's a Gizmodo article, unless I'm missing something.
- elthran 11y agoWho are owned by Gawker Media
- gourou 11y agoDo you believe kelukelugames? It's a HN comment
- kelukelugames 11y agoGizmodo is part of the Gawker empire. Their writers overlap and all push for click bait. I dislike their sites except for Deadspin because I don't mind reading trashy sports news.
- kaendfinger 11y agoAhh I see, my bad, didn't realize Gizmodo is part of Gawker.
- brockers 11y agoI think it would be foolish to NOT assume facebook AND Gawker do this.
- dang 11y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659831 and marked it off-topic.
- kelukelugames 11y agoI don't think we should trust tabloid sources like gawker and businessinsider. They create the clickbait.
- gourou 11y agoIt's crazy how Facebook and Google could tip the scale during Election Year http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-co...
- nil_is_me 11y agoIt has been blatantly clear something is up with their Trending algorithm when you notice there is a Trending: Hillary Clinton header on top of every single shared Bernie Sanders article. Never once have I seen a Trending: Bernie Sander header.
- fisherjeff 11y agoGiven Facebook's influence and the sheer size of their userbase, the potential long-term implications of this particular kind of manipulation are... unsettling.
- dba7dba 11y agoI am not surprised Facebook has been doing this. It's ironic. Silicon Valley is all about question the authorities. Ask why. And now we hear stories like these Orwellian like practices... This will be another interesting topic historians will examine years from now. What happens when an outsider/outcast/underdog group becomes the insiders/powerful. Do they act like tycoons in the past (using power to preserve itself) or keep true to the spirit of outsider/outcast that may lead to its demise? I vote for Silicon Valley powers becoming like the past tycoons.
- alanwatts 11y agoFor anyone interested in this shift in power, check out futurist Alvin Toffler's Powershift. His thesis is that the pinnacle of power throughout time as technology has evolved has shifted from brute strength, to money in the industrial age, and now finally to information in the post-industrial age which we live in now. http://www.amazon.com/Powershift-Knowledge-Wealth-Violence-Century/dp/0553292153#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1462824341731 http://www.amazon.com/Powershift-Knowledge-Wealth-Violence-C...
- chillacy 11y agoI once watched a group of pigeons in a park fight for food. The biggest pigeon bullied all the other pigeons. I thought that was unfair... he was getting all the food. So I shooed him away. Immediately afterwards, one of the formerly bullied pigeons became the new bully. Power is a funny thing... and I suspect people aren't so different than other animals in this regard.
- carsongross 11y agoI am a conservative and I see nothing wrong with this. It is their software and their servers, after all. I want a collapse in trust in the major social networks. This is the internet we are talking about. Let them suppress, and let them see what happens.
- reitanqild 11y ago> This is the internet we are talking about. Let them suppress, and let them see what happens. As long as it gets out you mean?
- carsongross 11y agoThis is the internet we are talking about.
- brokentone 11y agoFrom an extremely pure free-market conservative/capitalist approach, sure, there is nothing wrong with this, they can do what they want. From a basic governmental regulation (Hayek) monopoly approach, FB is the incumbent and it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to gain a foothold here. Regulation ought to make it easier for others to approach the space. They are the single biggest voice in the news at this point, and whatever stances they support has an inestimable advantage in ways that far outstrip campaign finance contributions or lobbying. They may have to be governmentally disrupted to keep their power from becoming too great. From a consumer labeling perspective, Facebook is profiting off improperly calling articles "trending" that are just their preferred way to view the world. I just wonder if these articles go far enough to collapse any trust.
- acheron 11y agoFB is the incumbent and it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to gain a foothold here "Will MySpace Ever Lose Its Monopoly?" (2007): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....
- ape4 11y agoSome newspapers have well known left or right leanings. But its declared and out in the open. Most people thought Facebook news was organically trending. That's the difference here.
- kps 11y ago> Most people thought Facebook news was organically trending. “They trust me. Dumb fucks.”
- matamiraj 11y agoProtocol #12:4 - “NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. All news items are received by a few agencies from all parts of the world. These agencies will be entirely in our control and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.”
- 6stringmerc 11y ago>The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module. Heh, not really a big surprise to me. Rule probably doesn't apply to whenever MZ makes a big announcement though. Betting those got stuck high in the rankings from day 1. Anyway, sounds about right for any image-protective service, or, you know, typical state-run-media censorship.
- lettergram 11y agoInteresting, just last week my friend and I were debating how much Google and Facebook can influence an election. We agreed it would be catastrophic if either decided to lean one way or the other... Facebook is essentially suppressing free speech. Although, it has somewhat a right to do what it wants, it is skewing what other people share with one another (which is a big deal)
- morgante 11y agoHow is it suppressing free speech? It's not keeping you from posting ridiculous pro-Trump tirades. It's not even hiding those tirades from your friends. All it's doing is choosing not to shine a spotlight on conservative stories which aren't corroborated by mainstream sources.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago> conservative stories which aren't corroborated by mainstream sources. Conservativism is mainstream. Part of the problem is that many people who are not conservative have been lead to believe that it is a marginal/extreme ideology. It is not. It may be a majority ideology, but it is at a bare minimum a the second most common. For what it's worth I don't consider myself a conservative.
- lettergram 11y agoLast I checked (can't find the stats on mobile), conservatives represented 65+% of the vote in the U.S. However, they are significantly less likely to vote, many living in a rural area.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Last I checked (can't find the stats on mobile), conservatives represented 65+% of the vote in the U.S. That's basically never been even close to the case. Polling from earlier this year had a 37%/35%/24% conservative/moderate/liberal split [1], with "conservative" having a high since 1992 of 40%. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideolog...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- morgante 11y agoKeep in mind that this allegation is coming from a single conservative curator who no longer works there. And even he seems pretty indecisive about it being an institutional bias: "I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz." If Facebook is trying to suppress conservative news, they're doing a terrible job of it. I see far more Trump than I would like.
- adventured 11y agoApparently it's not coming from a single curator. The manipulation of the trending section was much wider spread than that: "Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module." The article then mentions a second curator that also admits anti-conservative bias: "Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. 'It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,' said the former curator."
- partiallypro 11y ago> Keep in mind that this allegation is coming from a single conservative curator who no longer works there. This is false, the headline even alludes to it being more than a single source. The entire article uses plural terms and refers to 'several.' I think you read the lede, but skipped the rest.
- djur 11y agoFrom the article: > Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.
- HillaryBriss 11y ago> When users weren’t reading stories that management viewed as important, several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending news feed anyway. Maybe a goal here is to try to ensure that the FB community does not _appear to outsiders_ to be a right-wing, conservative, un-cool community. If the FB user base were seen as a collection of mainstream, or even right-of-center, people, it would be bad for business. A lot of observers and decision-makers in industry might spend their ad dollars somewhere else.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- partiallypro 11y agoI am confused why Facebook needs news curators to begin with? Why can't the news just be organic entirely and use ML to curate it per person. I can understand blacklisting certain sites or topics just for pure sanity or appropriateness. Having people as curators just seems like wasted capital. Anyhow, I find this abhorrent, but I think Facebook has every right to do it as a private entity. I don't think they have a social responsibility to be 100% even. What does bother me is that they claim to be evenhanded, I do want transparency, especially when you are basically the monopoly in social media (excluding Snapchat and Twitter, they own everything.) This also presents a problem, I think with Twitter's new algorithmic timeline and why the real-time feed is vastly superior for their model (I'll beat this dead horse until Jack realizes how dumb it is.)
- bobwaycott 11y agoThis is obviously very bad from the standpoint that the trending news section is ostensibly supposed to be organic, based on user behavior, and free of bias—except that which is inherent in the users themselves sharing things to be picked up as "trending". It appears that "trending news" has really been "curated news". Not cool at all. More concerning than trending news actually being curated news is learning that negative stories about Facebook were allegedly actively suppressed. Doublenotcool at all. However, that there is "conservative news" and "liberal news" is even more bothersome. Especially that it's offered as something anyone should find to be acceptable as an idea at all. > But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased. This is delivered as if it is inherently a bad thing, when it most assuredly is not. When I come across a story about anything, I actively prefer to find it covered by a neutral outlet that isn't as biased. This is, to me, a good thing, and what news should be. News should be information about events. If I want opinionated and editorialized news, I'd go after an opinionated and editorialized source. They abound. That anyone who calls themselves a journalist would call out the suppression of "conservative news" or "liberal news", instead of calling out the elevation and coupling of inherent bias in reporting as the problem itself, strikes me as more than worrisome. To my thinking, there is a difference between news that is of interest to [insert ideological group identification] and news that is delivered through the bias of [insert ideological group identification]. I would love it if there was a way to identify and filter news from a neutral outlet with less (ideally no) bias. I recognize that is largely impossible, as we cannot rid ourselves of our biases very easily. However, we can recognize our biases and seek to counterbalance them. We can also make attempts to actively omit them from news coverage. An outlet can report on facts. That said, it appears this story highlights both: a biased suppression of news that is of interest to conservatives and news that is delivered through the lens of conservatively biased opinion and sources. The former is entirely bad, as it actively omits information that a group would like to know. The second is far less onerous to me, as I personally would love it if there were algorithmic delivery of actual news from outlets that eschewed biased delivery and editorializing. Edit: It is made clear in the article that part of the problem stems from Facebook's desire to compete with Twitter for real-time trending news. This is unsurprising, as should the outcome be to readers and users. Facebook created a tool to allow humans to modify news in the trending section that wasn't organically trending. Someone thought this would be a competitive net positive because it could allow Facebook curators to keep up with breaking news that was "all over Twitter". That Facebook hired curators, and that one or more of those curators then divulged information about this tool being used to subjectively inject or suppress stories seems entirely unsurprising. The tool obviously should not exist. Creating it was a very dumb move. Not militantly monitoring and correcting its misuse was even dumber.
- mc32 11y agoYes they are a private publicly traded company and they are within the law to manipulate news or whatever they want with their platform in most places at this time. However, if they were to become a clearinghouse for information I would think eyes of scrutiny would descend and look at how they attempt to manipulate news and opinion. It's not clear who (in the hierarchy) is behind the decision to shape the news nor is it clear why they would mainly suppress conservative stories over liberal stories. Are liberal sources less prone to exaggeration? Or would they simply upset their audience less? Interesting never the less. And certainly this could have serious repercussions on how news is consumed and perceived.
- Shivetya 11y agoWell when your company leadership proclaims how they lean it certainly lends direction to those who work there. As for why would the suppress, those in power will tend to use it and many will justify it as fixing the system after all they are the smartest people they know so how could they be wrong? Really the media has been slanted off and on for some time and most techies are very one sided if not blinded by altruistic claims that can never be delivered. Its the only song and dance of "its for the children" - who is going to say they don't like children
- notliketherest 11y agoThe problem is, as a private company, should Facebook choose to manipulate it's news feed algorithm to promote one candidate or the other, or for whatever reason, this would be its prerogative under the First Amendment. I personally choose to not use Facebook specifically for these reasons. Even though I know many Facebook employees personally, I don't trust it's employees to divorce their own interests and their powerful position as Facebook's curators.
- jimmytidey 11y agoAny democratic country depends on the quality of public discourse for the effectiveness of its political system, and for this reason many countries have special rules for newspapers and TV. What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be covered by those laws. One defence Facebook might consider is to say that it simply reflects the preferences of its readers algorithmically. However, this article shows that is not the case, and that the company does exercise editorial judgement. Of course, the design of the algorithms is tacit editorialising anyway, so the whole point is moot to me. While we are considering the fact that FB is a private company (actually a public company), some might be inclined to say that if users realise Facebook cannot be trusted, then they will leave the site causing its revenues to decrease. Other more honest and transparent competitors will take its place. However, in practise there are many reasons to think this won't happen, which is why we have special laws for the press in the first place.
- 1024core 11y ago> What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be covered by those laws. Is Fox "News" covered by these laws? Surely you're not suggesting with a straight face that Fox News is "fair and balanced" ?
- SFLemonade 11y agoAre you suggesting with a straight face that CNN "News" is fair and balanced? Or perhaps any of the myriad of blatantly politically charged companies out of Silicon Valley? It happens on both sides, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the left is much more guilty of this than the right. Fox News has become a meme because it is the only mainstream news source that blatantly shows conservative bias. Try pointing to mainstream news sources that blatantly show liberal bias and you'd lose count.
- littletimmy 11y agoThe more I hear about what Facebook has become, the less I like it. Previously we heard that they run experiments to alter users news feeds to see if they could alter their mood, now we learn they're engaging in what is basically propaganda by suppressing certain viewpoints. And all this for what? So that you can be advertised to while you waste your time on the internet. What a terrible company. Speaks ill of humanity that it is so popular.
- DanielBMarkham 11y agoPeople are people. In a way this isn't news at all. The problem is that these companies are hiding behind the "But it's all just an algorithm" defense, when, in fact, as we all suspected, there are real people behind the scenes slanting things. My gut tells me that a lot of tech companies are subtly controlling the types of news their consumers get. Overall this is probably a good thing -- helps keep the quality high. But I'm a libertarian. If a bunch of left-leaning folks start controlling what I consume from a political angle and not just quality angle -- and then lie about it? Really pisses me off. Yes, you're a private company. Do whatever you want. It's the lying that's the problem here -- and the implication that the electorate needs people better than they are to control and guide what they're allowed to talk about. I bet we continue to hear about this, and in places most people would never suspect, over the coming decade or two. This is unacceptable, and something is going to need to give somewhere.
- bobwaycott 11y agoGenuinely curious: As a libertarian, are you equally pissed off when a bunch of right-leaning folks start controlling what you consume from a political, and not just quality, angle—and then lie about it?
- dba7dba 11y agoYes libertarians would be pissed if right-leaners control news. But the topic here is facebook. Let's stay on topic.
- krapp 11y agoStop telling people what the topic is, please. This is a public forum, you can't control other people's conversations, or determine the validity of their interests. Post a comment about Facebook that's worth replying to if you want to steer things away from politics.
- dba7dba 11y ago@krapp EDIT: I said stay on topic, because some will try to go tangent to prevent meaningful discussion on the real topic. Much like politicians not answering questions. This achieves one's goal of causing FUD to keep the person/organization's brand from getting tarnished. If facebook comes out saying it's not true, will anyone really believe them, knowing their past practices? Facebook has a lot of eyeballs looking and thus influence, and so the higher-ups there now want to use it to influence others. Much like celebrities do. And they got to such position of influence using not so good tactics. Are people ok with this? My guess is not.
- oarsinsync 11y agoTL;DR 'Trending News' is actually 'Curated News'
- bobwaycott 11y agoThanks to a tool that specifically allows modifying the news shown to users and the alleged biases of curator contractors who seem to have no accountability checks.
- alistairSH 11y agoI wouldn't say "no accountability checks." The article references instances where the curators were instructed to boost non-trending stories. So, they are being actively managed. And, presumably can be replaced easily if their curating deviates from Facebook's wishes.
- bobwaycott 11y agoI suppose I meant enforcement of a policy that prohibited modifying the news identified by algorithms.
- nil_is_me 11y agoWhat happened to the other thread on this?
- patrickg_zill 11y agoThe issue is that FB advertises itself as "conduit" or "network connection". You log in, communicate with people and the site tools, FB runs ads on your eyeballs, etc. Similar to how I give my electricity provider money, and they give me electricity. Now FB clearly sees themselves as (let's be honest) a "power broker" or "rain maker". Not the same as "utility" or "network connection" or "conduit".
- dforrestwilson 11y agoAgree. New Media would be a better classification.
- cududa 11y agoI don't think I've looked at Facebook like that at all since they started using an algorithmic newsfeed. I was under the impression that that confirmed them as a "power broker" to pretty much everyone. If you're looking for a "utility" or "network connection" I'd direct you to app.net if they're even still in business
- proksoup 11y agoTwitter even, for the most part as far as I understand gives you complete control over your feed, with the (minor?) exceptions of promoted tweets and suggested followers. It's worth noting the candidate who has been most successful (or at least taken advantage of it) on that platform might fit the parent article's definition of conservative (or at least the sort of content they are suppressing).
- bobwaycott 11y agoHasn't Twitter recently been tweaking user feeds based on algorithms? Pretty sure I've been seeing mine out of order, with all manner of "you might have missed" and "stuff we think is relevant to you" tweets injected at the top. I think I recently had to flip a setting to try turning off this "stuff we think is relevant to you" off. Maybe that's the promoted tweets, or are those the ads?
- 11y ago
- api 11y agoWhat if it were liberal news? This is basically the filter bubble problem. All filters have biases whether they are human or algorithmic.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoThis is basically the monopoly problem. The problem isn't that FB is slanted, but that FB has a near-monopoly on user attention, which allows its slant to be both covert and disproportionately influential. If FB was one of a selection of companies competing in the same space, political bias would be less of an issue, because it would be more like the print magazine and blog space. But then you have the problem that the US gov has an entire network of foundations, think-tanks, blogs, PR companies, astroturfers, bought-and-paid-for journalists, and other "thought leaders" who exist solely to present a specific agenda - usually a pro-corporate one. In the same way that you can't argue with the Fed, you can't argue with a state-organised propaganda machine - not easily, anyway. So the problem is much wider than FB.
- SFLemonade 11y ago> The problem isn't that FB is slanted, but that FB has a near-monopoly on user attention, which allows its slant to be both covert and disproportionately influential. I couldn't agree more. They also have an unprecedented level of reach (billions of users) and user trust (appearance of community opinion vs. news media filtering). > So the problem is much wider than FB. Absolutely. Facebook is far from being the only offender here, and in a way, this is a growing pain of new technology. Just as we learned to not trust big media, we also will have to learn to approach social media with skepticism (despite it's inherently organic appearance).
- dragonwriter 11y ago> What if it were liberal news? If you read the article, its quite possible that it was also liberal news, depending on individual curators. Given other FB interventions I've seen, I'd be surprised if, like everything else at FB, the news moderation wasn't just stunningly inconsistent with rampant suppression of left, right, and center according to individual and essentially unaccountable whim. FB is tolerably usable for basic circle-of-immediate-friends social functions without excessive interference. As far as public communication, news, and advocacy, well, its there, and there's enough people that come to it for that that it can't be ignored, but its fairly horrible for it, not so much from a systematic one-sided distortion but more absolute caprice.
- maldusiecle 11y agoI'd be interested to know a little bit more about how this relates to the news sites that are covering the story. Breitbart isn't much better than a tabloid--arguably worse, even. It's equivalent to leftwing sites like Alternet, which I also wouldn't expect Facebook to be comfortable linking to.
- rjeli 11y agoThe article says they censor the Drudge Report, which is much more reliable than Breitbart.
- maldusiecle 11y agoI'm confused by this comment, because to my eyes the Drudge Report frontpage looks like it was consciously modeled on tabloids. Obviously for historical reasons they have some importance--but so do some tabloids. To clarify, I think this an issue of respectability, not reliability.
- throwaway2016a 11y agoAnecdotal: apparently this isn't work for me. My news feed is FILLed with conservative election news. How can I enable this feature ;)
- dba7dba 11y agoApparently you are too conservative according to Facebook? Or too many friends that are conservative?
- Grishnakh 11y agoHe probably has too many conservative friends. FB seems to think that just because you've "friended" people that you want to see, and agree with, all the inane political bullshit they post. One of many reasons I don't use FB. I keep an account on there for a few reasons, but I almost never actually look at it.
- ben336 11y agoThis is about the trending news section (top right of the screen on desktop), not the newsfeed.
- duaneb 11y agoDifferent feature: trending is a box full of subjects, none of which you may be subscribed to.
- krapp 11y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659676
- thecity2 11y agoFacebook's trending news algorithm is just Soylent Green, after all?
- dba7dba 11y agoNEWS sites that filter out news to meet its own agendas? Expected. But let's stay focused on the topic, Facebook.
- SFLemonade 11y agoAbsolutely. Users don't perceive Facebook as a news site. They perceive it as a representation of their community, and as such, it is immensely more influential. That's why this is dangerous.
- lazzlazzlazz 11y ago> “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. > Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work. It sounds like any issues were from curators who weren't being adequately supervised, instead of top-down orders from executives at Facebook. This is different than what the current Hacker News headline suggests. Can we all collectively read the article and understand that the issue is different than our preconceptions lead us to believe?
- gunshigh 11y agoOr Facebook has learned the art of Plausible Deniability. If the bias happens during hiring (by preferring candidates who naturally lean left), then Facebook merely needs to give them curation power without giving explicit instructions.
- ghgfhgfhn 11y agoI can't stress enough how powerful an argument I think this is.
- lazzlazzlazz 11y agoThis sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to take very seriously. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence.
- gunshigh 11y ago> The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that "we need to do some work" on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. "Are you working on this?" Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-m...
- HillaryBriss 11y agoFB must avoid the outward perception that its members are a collection of right-wing cranks. That perception would be bad for business.
- PaulHoule 11y agoSo what. The day Bill Clinton got elected, Rush Limbaugh started counting the days of "America Held Hostage". Today Fox News leads every day with how there is a Nggr in the White House and we all hate Obama and everything he stands for, and it is a tragedy we will get four years of Hillary because the Republicans are so screwed up, and... Right wing "thinkers" get unlimited funding from the likes of the Koch Brothers and free copies of their books get mailed to all the public libraries in America. Even on "liberal" CNN they regularly have panels of "conservative thinkers", and the Economist features a "conservative thinker" who is a Senator from Nebraska. When they bring a "liberal" on it is always somebody who works for a campaign or the Democratic party. Conservatives get all the breaks but they are always bitching they aren't treated fairly. It worked for Nixon but hasn't worked for any Republican candidate ever since.
- luso_brazilian 11y agoPart of what you said is hyperbolic or plainly not true, another part a false equivalence and, in both cases, it greatly misses the point. To get two points right out of the way: 1. I completely agree that the mainstream media in the U.S. (and in most parts of the world) is very biased and partisan. 2. I also agree that, as private companies, both Facebook and the mainstream media are in their complete right to proceed with their business as they see fit, within the legality of it anyway. I don't believe whatever it is that they do is a First Amendment (the rule forbidding the government from suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, etc) matter although it can be a freedom of speech (the natural right) matter. With that out of the way the main reasoning of this post. The great promise of the Internet in general and social media in particular is that, maybe for the first time in history, the natural rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly come together in this amazing technological manner and, at least in principle, without the need for authorization and without the interference of powerful third parties like the government or the elite. People can exchange thoughts and ideas, coordinate, and interact instantaneously all across the globe without the need of long travel or intermediaries relaying those messages. There was even an implicit promise, an unrealized one when, in many of the big public manifestations of the beginning of this decade the so called "Social Media Revolution" helped to magnify the voice of the people in the streets, to help them to coordinate outside the graps of their governments (that usually have full control of both the media and the old means of communication like landlines and mobile phones). And these new companies (like FB, Twitter, Reddit to name a few) capitalized on that claim too, posting themselves as bastions of freedom of speech, the tools for people to change the world, one hashtag at a time. Now, the damnedest thing: with each revelation like this one it becomes apparent that "the king is dead, long live the king". These companies, far from providing the means for people to communicate, to freely exchange thoughts and ideas, they try to shape and mold these ideas just like the very tools the government and the oligarchy uses to control the people. If it is real that Facebook does that (and there is no reason to doubt) that betrays the people a lot more than the examples you mention. I believe people, after all these centuries since the printing press (now synonymous with journalism) are used to the idea that it is biased, partisan and, in general unreliable. But when it is their very words and thoughts that are being distorted, the ones from their friends, their neighbors, whose opinions and ideas can be amplified or muted at will depending on whether they conform or not to the gateway controllers agenda, that in my opinion is the ultimate betrayal by those companies. Assuming this and many other suspicious about their behavior is true Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the social media in general is betraying the people a lot worse than the mainstream media are. [1] The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations [2010]: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media-revolution-exploring-the-impact-on-journalism-and-news-media-organizations http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media-re... [2] If You Doubt That Social Media Has Changed The World, Take A Look At Ukraine [2014]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-doubt-that-social-media-has-changed-the-world-take-a-look-at-ukraine/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-dou... [3] Welcome to the social media revolution [2012]: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662
- jessaustin 11y agoIs this even in the top fifty of shitty things facebook does? I ask that as someone who has visited the site four or five times in my life. Every time has confirmed how horrible it is. Every item about FB I see in the rest of the media is a complaint of some sort. What is going on?
- hugh4life 11y agoI always use uBlock's "element picker" to block out trending topic lists as I find them somewhat manipulative. 1) I do sometimes suspect biased curation 2) They can be astroturfed 3) Even if spontaneous there's a virtual mob mentality that comes with trending topics. Trending topic lists are ok if they're on their own separate page but when you have it upfront the subtext is "this is what you must care or know about".
- pklausler 11y agoPerhaps Facebook was suppressing "news" items contradicted by empirical reality, and this policy disproportionately affected conservative positions.
- michaelbuddy 11y agoYour 'perhaps' assertion contradicts what the curators actually said.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Grue3 11y agoGuess what, conservatives think "liberal news" are contradicted by empirical reality too. Nobody thinks they are in the wrong.
- gunshigh 11y agoOr perhaps perception of "empirical reality" is shaped by existing biases, causing them to be denied outright, resulting in an echo chamber that disproportionately affected conservative positions.
- popmystack 11y agoI like how there is an influx of new accounts that seem to be commenting on this article, but no where else. Most of the publications that were being "suppressed" are tabloid-esque in manner. The fact that they are all conservative seems to be a problem conservatives may want to fix.
- exabrial 11y agoIt really bothers me that acceptable forms of protests are now: intimidation(1), harassment(2), and subversion(this). If your cause is just, isn't a non-violent protest enough? Speaking about it, voting with your dollar, etc? 1) http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox-because-of-ceos-1555616237 http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox-be... 2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- c0nducktr 11y agoIsn't your first example actually an example of "voting with your dollar" (or in case of a free product, voting with your usage)?
- mikeash 11y agoI see no intimidation for (1), just a straightforward statement of preference. (2) is not considered acceptable. And I'm going to bet that this behavior is not going to be considered acceptable either. Certainly the linked story doesn't portray it as acceptable, and at the moment nearly every HN comment here is critical.
- rdancer 11y ago(1) is just straight-up speech. I find Mozilla's firing of Eich a disgusting example of political discrimination and stifling of free speech, and encourage everybody to boycott their products. — See, it's just speech.
- exabrial 11y ago1) Is indeed intimidation and no better than what FB did here (abuse of market position). Apple didn't prevent Firefox installs on their laptops in response to Proposition 8. They issued a strong, party neutral (And well worded IMHO) statement. 1) lead to the encouragement and harassment of an individual. Just because a person, doesn't have the same opinion as you, or is being a jerk to someone else, does NOT give you the right to do the same to them. Two wrongs do not make a right. Get your heads straight.
- jackmaney 11y agoI fail to see an actual problem with this.
- angersock 11y agoMmmm...yes....truly those backwards conservatives don't have any real news. /me swirls whiskey and tips fedora Seriously, do you even recognize how condescending you sound?
- pklausler 11y agoTax cuts raise revenue! Saddam had WMDs and participated in 9/11! Global climate change is a myth/conspiracy! Obamacare will lead to high unemployment! Allowing transgendered women into ladies' rooms leads to assaults on our wimminfolk! The Earth is 6,020 years old and evolution is a Satanic lie! If Facebook is keeping "news" sources with this kind of debunked, disproven, dishonest "facts" out of my news stream, then I'm going to start spending more time on Facebook.
- angersock 11y agoYou know, if folks didn't feel like they had to appeal to increasingly extreme positions in order to maintain audience size (because of other censorship), maybe those positions wouldn't get so much air time. Additionally, having them out in the open like that lets sane people like you and I go over and point out their silliness. The current approach just allows it to fester.
- gunshigh 11y agoBenghazi was the result of a YouTube video! We're not spying on your emails! I never sent classified information on that server! Drone strikes only hit terrorists! There are no secret "kill lists"! With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors! We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need! The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi! "If Facebook is keeping "news" like this, then I'm going to start spending more time on Facebook."
- pdkl95 11y ago(Remember, the point was matching "empirical reality") > Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video! Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and government policy. > We're not spying on your emails! This one uses the NSA's word game where they claim it's only a "search" when a human looks at it. While I suspect many regular politicians (including Obama) don't fully understand the subject, this one should be counted as a lie. > I never sent classified information on that server! Hillary still might be indicted for that, though I suspect the "rich and powerful" will trump "rule of law" as usual. It might be useful to stop framing everything as conservative-vs-liberal, and realize that there are rich people everywhere on the political spectrum. Their most successful strategy was getting everyone else to fight between themselves. As for empirical reality, I have no idea if it's true. If we're (very) lucky, the indictment will happen and the truth will be revealed in court. > Drone strikes only hit terrorists! I agree that this is a lie, but it's non-partisan. Drones strikes (and similar war crimes) started before Obama. > There are no secret "kill lists"! (same as above) > With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors! That's true. If you doctor or supplementary insurance decided to drop you instead of meeting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, that's between you and your doctor. > We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need! You plan to never use medical services? > The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi! I'll agree this one is a lie. -- To summarize, nothing is perfect, but conservatives have a much more serious problem with reality. Most politicians play political games and dissemble to get what they want, but it's disingenuous to claim both side are similarly wrong. Denial of our climate problems, creationist beliefs, and claiming revenue can be increase with tax cuts (the main source of revenue) are in contradiction with reality in fundamental - and easily observable - ways.
- Gratsby 11y agoThis seems like a story built specifically for a segment on Fox News where the newscasters feign shock and horror that their news topics aren't being covered by "mainstream media". Of course trending news is curated. All hell would break loose otherwise. There is no shortage of rabid political content conservative or otherwise on Facebook. A good part of the end user community would rather not deal with it.
- luso_brazilian 11y agoTo get two points right out of the way: 1. I completely agree that the mainstream media in the U.S. (and in most parts of the world) is very biased and partisan. 2. I also agree that, as private companies, both Facebook and the mainstream media are in their complete right to proceed with their business as they see fit, within the legality of it anyway. I don't believe whatever it is that they do is a First Amendment (the rule forbidding the government from suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, etc) matter although it can be a freedom of speech (the natural right) matter. With that out of the way the main reasoning of this post. The great promise of the Internet in general and social media in particular is that, maybe for the first time in history, the natural rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly come together in this amazing technological manner and, at least in principle, without the need for authorization and without the interference of powerful third parties like the government or the elite. People can exchange thoughts and ideas, coordinate, and interact instantaneously all across the globe without the need of long travel or intermediaries relaying those messages. There was even an implicit promise, an unrealized one when, in many of the big public manifestations of the beginning of this decade the so called "Social Media Revolution" helped to magnify the voice of the people in the streets, to help them to coordinate outside the graps of their governments (that usually have full control of both the media and the old means of communication like landlines and mobile phones). And these new companies (like FB, Twitter, Reddit to name a few) capitalized on that claim too, posting themselves as bastions of freedom of speech, the tools for people to change the world, one hashtag at a time. Now, the damnedest thing: with each revelation like this one it becomes apparent that "the king is dead, long live the king". These companies, far from providing the means for people to communicate, to freely exchange thoughts and ideas, they try to shape and mold these ideas just like the very tools the government and the oligarchy uses to control the people. If it is real that Facebook does that (and there is no reason to doubt) that betrays the people a lot more than the examples you mention. I believe people, after all these centuries since the printing press (now synonymous with journalism) are used to the idea that it is biased, partisan and, in general unreliable. But when it is their very words and thoughts that are being distorted, the ones from their friends, their neighbors, whose opinions and ideas can be amplified or muted at will depending on whether they conform or not to the gateway controllers agenda, that in my opinion is the ultimate betrayal by those companies. Assuming this and many other suspicious about their behavior is true Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the social media in general is betraying the people a lot worse than the mainstream media are. [1] The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations [2010]: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media-re.. http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media-re.... [2] If You Doubt That Social Media Has Changed The World, Take A Look At Ukraine [2014]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-dou.. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-dou.... [3] Welcome to the social media revolution [2012]: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662 (recycling this post made to the duplicated thread, but still appropriate to this one)
- xmstr 11y agoAny news outlet or aggregator that's claims it is unbiased is probably lying. If there are humans involved there will be bias.
- zepto 11y agoNote that the source for this is a single self-identified conservative ex-contractor.
- Mendenhall 11y agoThat is not true. "Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively."
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoTry posting a link to a Breitbart story here on HN. It's silently suppressed. Doesn't even appear in 'new'. Whereas links to rt.com are welcome. That's just how things are, comrade! :) My previous rant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518592
- xenadu02 11y agoBecause Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sensationalist sources of nonsense on the Internet, right up there with Infowars. The fact is the truth isn't somewhere in the middle. We shouldn't be encouraging disingenuous assholes by giving them a platform to spread deliberate lies and mis-information, no matter whether that source is "conservative" or "liberal".
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoI'm actually quite proud of my Breitbart submission. I thought it was a newsworthy story, that added valuable additional information to a topic we had been discussing. But yeah, let's just call everyone we disagree with "disingenuous assholes". The Breitbart story I tried to submit was: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/07/exclusive-displaced-cast-member-how-disney-replaced-me-other-americans-with-cheap-foreigners-on-h1b-visas/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/07/exclusive... Try clicking on this HN link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182135 You can't even see the link at all as an anonymous user. I don't know if it shows up for people to have 'showdead' enabled, or if it's equivalent of a hellban, where I'm the only one who can see it.
- vox_mollis 11y agoQuite interesting that two highly-active posts on this topic have been very rapidly removed from the frontpage. Clearly something the community would like to discuss; clearly something HN doesn't want discussed.
- MichaelGG 11y agoRemember HN has flame detection software, so highly commented stories can sometimes be driven down quickly. I guess you could email the mods if you really see something amiss. But to give them more work, but at least dang seems to be a very kind person and takes HN seriously. HN even has show dead, so even off topic or blatantly inflammatory/rude/racist/etc comments can still be seen.
- throwit992 11y agoI have no great love of conservative politics, but there's a convincing argument to be made that their ideas and views are routinely suppressed by media outside of explicitly partisan media outlets (i.e. Fox News or talk radio). There are a number of studies that back up this claim. A 2008 study[0] found that 88% of journalists donate to the Democratic party. Jonathan Haidt has shown[1] that non-economics social sciences skew more than 14-1 liberal to conservative (and that universities have not always been so skewed). For anyone who believes these statistics are not based on overt discrimination based on political viewpoint, a recent study[2] showed that discrimination by party is stronger than that of race. The study did so by reproducing a landmark study that demonstrated the existence of unconscious racial bias (the implicit association test), but instead using political indicators. They found that partisan political positions triggered implicit associations 50% stronger than that of racial biases. There is also a recent book called "Passing on the Right"[3] which provides some personal narratives of conservative academics. If you're relying on academic knowledge to provide you a sense of reality, you're viewing reality through a lens that is biased to a 93% degree towards one political pole, and then receiving that knowledge through a media system which is biased to an 88% degree towards that same political pole. Even if you, like me, generally believe that the liberal political position is correct, ideological conformity of this magnitude should frighten you. [0] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/130902 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/130902 [1] http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/ http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-... [2] https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-po... [3] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book-details-realities-being-conservative-professor-humanities-and-social https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book-deta...
- Grishnakh 11y agoWhat's bad is that it doesn't help reinforce your feeling that your position is correct when the other side is being actively suppressed. I generally agree with many liberal positions, but when I hear about stuff like this it makes me want to reconsider my opinions of conservative positions. It's exactly like the Streisand Effect.
- cloudjacker 11y agoThis is routine on all media sites and social networks, nothing to see here. Also way cheaper than funding a super pac am I right
- ci5er 11y agoWell, sort of. If you lean left-center, it's free. If you lean right-center, it's unavailable. Is this "cheaper"?
- jrehor 11y agoReading this must make China feel they made the right decision in banning Facebook. Not that they care about liberal v. conservative, but having their population manipulated by a cabal of Ivy Leaguers is a non-starter. The Chinese will run their own manipulation program, thank you very much. Other governments may be starting to come to the same conclusion.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bunkydoo 11y agoI hate how Silicon Valley culture makes it seem like they are all for freedom of information and how the big bad government is censoring and surveilling things from a bunch of innocent hackers (startup guys) when in reality if given the opportunity this crowd does the EXACT same thing. I have limited respect for either party
- dmix 11y agoTech companies are not immune to the negative side effects that come with large centralized institutions, even if it started in Silicon Valley. I don't believe we're ignorant to this fact. We tend to rally against centralization and attempts to control information. Which is exactly why this is frontpage on HN. FB has been consistently attacked for this type of stuff for years. That's a healthy sign of our community valuing freedom/markets/algorithms over the risks of handing over large amounts of power to a few humans. It seems even Facebook even values this approach as their own technology reaches parity with human curation: > Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, there were fewer instances of stories being injected.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- thesimpsons1022 11y ago“Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.” How awful.
- werber 11y agoI always do the same thing when I'm sending an article to someone who doesn't lean the same way politically, or when I (rarely) get preachy on my wall
- brown9-2 11y agoLet's actually examine the claims: Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. What scandals were being discussed yet suppressed from the "trending news" list out of these examples? How many of these examples are actual news stories? The IRS thing turned out to be overblown bullshit, what about the rest of them? When was the last time you heard your friends talking about Scott Walker, the guy who flopped in the polls and dropped out of the race before a single primary? It shouldn't be surprising if these curators decided to wait to see if a story being shared from breitbart.com was reported by bigger news outlets first. Many of these so-called conservative media outlets have a terrible record on reporting actual news. It is possible that Facebook suppresses actual news. It is also possible that this source (falsely) believed that not-really-news-or-trending stories were "suppressed" when in fact they were just not popular or smelt like bullshit.
- dmix 11y agoWe'd also need counter points that left-leaning news with fluffy content was also rejected to evaluate this fairly. The claims are that there is a right-leaning bias, if it was a bias against polarized news or poorly sourced articles then this wouldn't be news-worthy.
- AndrewGaspar 11y ago> What scandals were being discussed yet suppressed from the "trending news" list out of these examples? How many of these examples are actual news stories? The IRS thing turned out to be overblown bullshit, what about the rest of them? Is that actually true? The IRS' claim that every drive containing copies of the emails failed makes anything I hear from their side completely non-credible, in my opinion. Technically there is a chance of 100% drive failure, so I can't claim with complete certainty that they're full of it, but I think there were at least three 9s of the claim being bullshit the last time I ran through the numbers.
- s3r3nity 11y ago[Disclosure: I'm an ex-FB employee.] This is a bit of a click-bait title, and is somewhat true -- but not in the way you think. When FB was developing hashtags and content features, there was a concern that it is tough to find a middle-ground between 100% purely algorithmic generated content (i.e. leverage tastes data and supply articles suited to your interests) and 100% curated content (i.e. leverage tastes data, but only show articles from "reputable" sources and/or highly rated content, over shitty blog posts from amateurs.) The latter tends to do really well for engagement, as users can trust that the content they're seeing is reputable and popular. However the big concern that a number of us were raising was that tech companies have employees that are very biased in ways that they cannot control: they're younger, more liberal, and somewhat higher income, than the average FB user. In my time there, I never heard of _explicit_ suppression of any viewpoints - with the exception of recent disagreements around the "Black Lives Matter" protests, the first time that I encountered a situation where disagreeing meant you were labelled a "racist" - but I can see why well-intentioned product and policy decisions led FB content down this hole.
- marknutter 11y agoCrazy, there was someone who just posted a rant against BLM in response to this s3r3nity's comment and it was deleted like two minutes ago. Does HN suffer from the same censorship that Facebook does?
- pavlov 11y agoThe American two-party system is so weird. It tries to condense a complex matrix of sometimes-overlapping and fluid opinion scales -- socially conservative vs. socially liberal, globalist vs. protectionist, environmentalist vs. laissez-faire capitalist, and so on -- into one binary value. And somehow people have become convinced that not only is such a binary scale meaningful, but also the only available choice. In many European democracies there's a functional multi-party system where parties appear and disappear over time to reflect voters' opinions. For example, there might be a protectionist right-wing party that's favored by farmers, and another one that supports free trade and listens to big business. Same happens on all the axes. Governments are formed as coalitions of these "SMB-sized" parties based on the votes. It's not "winner takes all", but rather "winners and not-so-bad-losers negotiate to find common ground". What if the Republican and Democratic parties would break up into 6-10 new parties to better represent the actual opinions of the existing divisions within these parties? Statistics like "88% of journalists are anti-conservative" show how difficult it's to say anything meaningful about a polarized political field. To look at it another way, that 12% is roughly the level of support that extreme right-wing political parties enjoy in Europe these days. Lumping 88% of European voters together as one party would be ridiculous because that party would contain both former communists and free-trade globalists.
- pj_mukh 11y agoAgreed, and to me, this is a direct result of media organizations' extreme biases in America. This seems to be the missing link. I don't know of many non-American hyper-conservative media organizations that have directly tied their profit motive to how virulently their viewers believe that POV and are WILDLY successful at it.
- tormeh 11y agoNo, it's a result of the voting system. It will never change unless the Constitution changes. The best you can hope for without constitutional change is something like Britain; i.e. still a two-party system but less extreme differences. I think the extreme differences in the US vs the UK is less because of the media (british media is nastier than US in many ways) and more because UK society is more unified.
- notliketherest 11y agoJust a rant because I'm sick of the hypocrisy and double standards being perpetrated by the media and ignoramuses and I guess Facebook too - Black Lives matter is a racist, anarchist organization that engages in illegitimate and illegal protests, and whoever is funding them should be investigated and stand trial for supporting terrorist organizations.
- marknutter 11y agoFound the racist
- dang 11y agoPlease don't react to a bad comment by making the thread worse.
- marknutter 11y agoI was joking
- dang 11y agoPlease don't take HN threads into ideological flamewars. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662331 and marked it off-topic.
- VladKovac 11y agoIf you actually read the article it says "there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work". In other words this title is click-bait bullshit, it was up to the curators discretion.
- deleterious 11y agoSince 99% of "conservative" news is manufactured by corporate America, then manipulated, packaged, (Often repackaged.) and presented by Faux News, I'm actually okay with this. It may be supporters of Drumph and company learn the hard way just how almost everything we enjoy as Americans is very much at jeopardy because of Corporate America pushing their agenda and only their agenda through their media outlets. In other words, enjoy your market and real news manipulations. Drumph supporters if successful will earn it!
- simonsinnehll 11y agoYou couldn't be more wrong. If you actually cared and didn't choose your political view based on what'll look the best in a hashtag under your selfie, you'd quickly find out that ALL liberal politics are sponsored by multinational global corporations. Modern day conservatives are all about small business, small government and financial freedom.
- popmystack 11y agoYou people have lost the plot, truly.
- welanes 11y agoI, and most of my friends, are liberal minded. After The Guardian established a policy of (ironically) closing comments on their Comment Is Free section when the article relates to refugees or Muslims, I decided to include sites like Fox, Breitbart etc. into my daily feed. (I found the reflex to stifle debate deplorable and wanted to step outside the echo chamber). Discussions with friends have become more interesting for sure as I reveal their biases. From defending real violence over threats of violence, (Trump rallies and protests) to ignoring crime statistics, to just being woefully ignorant of what position the other side actually holds, it's incredible to see just how steadfast the Left can be in their ignorance.
- icomefromreddit 11y agoIt seems the consensus in this thread is the justly moral superiority and the infallibility of the left over the always faulty right.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- chris_wot 11y agoSee also: http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/careers/careersnews/9117323/facebook-suppressed-right-wing-news-stories http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/careers/careersnews/9117323/fa... Facebook deleted my friend John Dickson's post, so this happens. I don't agree with John's post, but I don't expect civil (if I feel misguided) discourse to be deleted. I want to be able to speak to the person and state my position, and have them clarify there's, and so on - you know, free discourse and dissemination of ideas!