5 ms·

People 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, i

People 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 10y ago
Genuinely 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 10y ago
  Yes libertarians would be pissed if right-leaners control news. But the topic here is facebook. Let's stay on topic.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Stop 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 10y 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.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    I am staying on topic. That I ask a followup to identify the extent of where someone stands on an issue isn't going off-topic. The parent made a statement about ideological leaning informing their ire toward information suppression. I was curious if it was one-way ire. Since you aren't the parent, I don't think you're able to answer my question. Moreover, the topic here isn't just Facebook, but their suppression and intentional modification of news and information based on a specific ideological bias.
    - dba7dba 10y ago
      I believe both right and left news medias filter out stories to meet own agenda. No question about that imo. The problem here is Facebook never claimed to be a news site but a connector for people. But here we find out they were acting as a left leaning news site or a powerbroker.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Not the PP, but yes, I am for the most part equally pissed at anyone that injects political editorial bias into otherwise factual news. And I am also meta-pissed when a bunch of money/power-leaning folks start influencing the propaganda themes of both the bunch of left-leaning folks and the bunch of right-leaning folks. Media consolidation just makes that particular channel wider and deeper. I am not pissed that there is a conservative talk radio station on my FM spectrum, and no other talker on the dial within range. Their bias is open and obvious. if I don't like it, I can listen to one of the 50 identical Bain Capital/THL Partners (IHeartMedia) or Oaktree Capital Management (Cumulus) stations. And I am pissed about that.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Yeah, I feel you—especially on the meta-pissed point. Media consolidation really bothers me. I haven't listened to radio in years and genuinely feel a bad mood start whenever I'm around it.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  Not the OP, but I'm someone who leans libertarian, and Trending Topics is one of the reasons I deactivated my Facebook account. I wasn't interested in most of the trending stories, they were often news stories designed to make people sad or angry, and that's not what I want to feel when visiting Facebook. I couldn't find a way to hide that feature either - so like bad advertising, it was always there annoying me. I would have preferred if the trending topics learned what I was interested in. I'm not averse to curation (either way), but I'd prefer that users were ultimately in control of their own filters. Even if that filter is "never show any politics, only show cat videos".
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Another genuinely curious: Any chance your departure from FB coincided with that little social feed experiment they performed to see if they could manipulate people's emotions?
    - SyneRyder 10y ago
      Funny you mention that! I left in October 2015, so it was long after their emotion contagion experiment. But I've often wondered if I fell into that experiment group, because I've felt much happier & calmer since leaving Facebook. I've deactivated my account for short periods before, so it's possible I may have deactivated previously during the experiment. But 7 months is the longest I've stayed deactivated & I have no desire to return to FB this time.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  For the past couple of decades, there's been some amount of affinity between Libertarians and conservatives. That's likely because the conservatives pay lip service to ideals of "smaller government", which is central to libertarianism. However, that really is just lip service, and so that alliance is a very [un]easy one. Even aside from that friction, there is some potential affinity between Libertarians and Liberals, because Libertarians see no governmental role in issues like gay marriage and use of medication/drugs. Because both groups seek similar outcomes in those areas there would be room for cooperation. But (IMHO) the Liberals are too antagonistic of property rights and self defense rights for this potential to be realized. Aside from political affinities, I think the real thrust of the parent post was that FB's actions are fraudulent: the product they're delivering to you differs in an important (to some people) way from what they claim they're delivering. In libertarian philosophy, fraud is just one form of force, which is the core evil: the central tenet of libertarianism is to not initiate force against another person. So at the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth: yes, a libertarian would be equally pissed off if the issue were the mirror of what we see here. EDIT: end of first para - omitted the "un", significantly changing meaning!
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Really well-articulated points, thanks. It'd be great to see some less-partisan unifying around this central tenet and others.
MisterBastahrd 10y ago
But that's not what the article said. They had a conservative on staff who was in charge of these feeds, and he wasn't cutting out conservative articles, he was cutting out articles that supported candidates he didn't like. As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. You should appreciate that as a libertarian. I see no harm in excluding articles from Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax. Or Alternet for that matter. Those aren't news organizations. They're propaganda tabloids which consume the work of Reuters and the AP and regurgitate it with a ton of spin.
- dba7dba 10y ago
  So facebook is a news site? Or a connector of people?
  - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
    I must have lost track of the law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. Facebook is a connector of people that uses news to keep people interested an on the site.
    - dba7dba 10y ago
      EDIT: No sir, there is no such law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. So, distort stories to keep eyeballs of main customers (younger hence more liberal) on Facebook, for the sake of earning more ad dollars? I think the younger customers deserve more than that? Should give more credit to the younger generation no?
      - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
        It's plainly clear that you didn't read the article, so there's nothing further to discuss.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  >As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Except when you don't know what you aren't seeing. >Those aren't news organizations. Breitbart has teams of reporters and editors, so does Infowars. Breitbart has offices in different locations, such as London and the U.S. Breitbart has it's reporters following the campaign and they get many exclusives. If we all should agree they aren't news orgs, then the HuffPost isn't a news org.
pdkl95 10y ago
> controlling the types of news their consumers get Of course they are. They control the medium. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that "it's just an algorithm" isn't a defense. Just because a process involves calculation doesn't make the entire process free of bias or agenda. The basic decision to use an algorithm is an opinionated decision that affects the outcome. Personal opinion influences how an algorithm was chosen or designed, how it will be applied, the selection of input data, and every other decision made during implementation. Yes, some time may not intend to add their own bias and opinion, but it still happens. Jacob Appelbaum recently[1] discussed this problem; "Your politics are in everything that you write". The same is true for software and algorithms in general. Your politics are in everything you design. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it exists, and pretending that an an algorithm is "unbiased" or otherwise free from human influence and manipulation is foolish. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY#t=78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY#t=78

bobwaycott 10y ago

Genuinely 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 10y ago
Yes libertarians would be pissed if right-leaners control news. But the topic here is facebook. Let's stay on topic.
- krapp 10y ago
  Stop 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 10y 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.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  I am staying on topic. That I ask a followup to identify the extent of where someone stands on an issue isn't going off-topic. The parent made a statement about ideological leaning informing their ire toward information suppression. I was curious if it was one-way ire. Since you aren't the parent, I don't think you're able to answer my question. Moreover, the topic here isn't just Facebook, but their suppression and intentional modification of news and information based on a specific ideological bias.
  - dba7dba 10y ago
    I believe both right and left news medias filter out stories to meet own agenda. No question about that imo. The problem here is Facebook never claimed to be a news site but a connector for people. But here we find out they were acting as a left leaning news site or a powerbroker.
logfromblammo 10y ago
Not the PP, but yes, I am for the most part equally pissed at anyone that injects political editorial bias into otherwise factual news. And I am also meta-pissed when a bunch of money/power-leaning folks start influencing the propaganda themes of both the bunch of left-leaning folks and the bunch of right-leaning folks. Media consolidation just makes that particular channel wider and deeper. I am not pissed that there is a conservative talk radio station on my FM spectrum, and no other talker on the dial within range. Their bias is open and obvious. if I don't like it, I can listen to one of the 50 identical Bain Capital/THL Partners (IHeartMedia) or Oaktree Capital Management (Cumulus) stations. And I am pissed about that.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Yeah, I feel you—especially on the meta-pissed point. Media consolidation really bothers me. I haven't listened to radio in years and genuinely feel a bad mood start whenever I'm around it.
SyneRyder 10y ago
Not the OP, but I'm someone who leans libertarian, and Trending Topics is one of the reasons I deactivated my Facebook account. I wasn't interested in most of the trending stories, they were often news stories designed to make people sad or angry, and that's not what I want to feel when visiting Facebook. I couldn't find a way to hide that feature either - so like bad advertising, it was always there annoying me. I would have preferred if the trending topics learned what I was interested in. I'm not averse to curation (either way), but I'd prefer that users were ultimately in control of their own filters. Even if that filter is "never show any politics, only show cat videos".
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Another genuinely curious: Any chance your departure from FB coincided with that little social feed experiment they performed to see if they could manipulate people's emotions?
  - SyneRyder 10y ago
    Funny you mention that! I left in October 2015, so it was long after their emotion contagion experiment. But I've often wondered if I fell into that experiment group, because I've felt much happier & calmer since leaving Facebook. I've deactivated my account for short periods before, so it's possible I may have deactivated previously during the experiment. But 7 months is the longest I've stayed deactivated & I have no desire to return to FB this time.
CWuestefeld 10y ago
For the past couple of decades, there's been some amount of affinity between Libertarians and conservatives. That's likely because the conservatives pay lip service to ideals of "smaller government", which is central to libertarianism. However, that really is just lip service, and so that alliance is a very [un]easy one. Even aside from that friction, there is some potential affinity between Libertarians and Liberals, because Libertarians see no governmental role in issues like gay marriage and use of medication/drugs. Because both groups seek similar outcomes in those areas there would be room for cooperation. But (IMHO) the Liberals are too antagonistic of property rights and self defense rights for this potential to be realized. Aside from political affinities, I think the real thrust of the parent post was that FB's actions are fraudulent: the product they're delivering to you differs in an important (to some people) way from what they claim they're delivering. In libertarian philosophy, fraud is just one form of force, which is the core evil: the central tenet of libertarianism is to not initiate force against another person. So at the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth: yes, a libertarian would be equally pissed off if the issue were the mirror of what we see here. EDIT: end of first para - omitted the "un", significantly changing meaning!
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Really well-articulated points, thanks. It'd be great to see some less-partisan unifying around this central tenet and others.

MisterBastahrd 10y ago

But that's not what the article said. They had a conservative on staff who was in charge of these feeds, and he wasn't cutting out conservative articles, he was cutting out articles that supported candidates he didn't like. As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. You should appreciate that as a libertarian. I see no harm in excluding articles from Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax. Or Alternet for that matter. Those aren't news organizations. They're propaganda tabloids which consume the work of Reuters and the AP and regurgitate it with a ton of spin.

dba7dba 10y ago
So facebook is a news site? Or a connector of people?
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  I must have lost track of the law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. Facebook is a connector of people that uses news to keep people interested an on the site.
  - dba7dba 10y ago
    EDIT: No sir, there is no such law that said that all things must be monolithic in their nature. So, distort stories to keep eyeballs of main customers (younger hence more liberal) on Facebook, for the sake of earning more ad dollars? I think the younger customers deserve more than that? Should give more credit to the younger generation no?
    - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
      It's plainly clear that you didn't read the article, so there's nothing further to discuss.
michaelbuddy 10y ago
>As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Except when you don't know what you aren't seeing. >Those aren't news organizations. Breitbart has teams of reporters and editors, so does Infowars. Breitbart has offices in different locations, such as London and the U.S. Breitbart has it's reporters following the campaign and they get many exclusives. If we all should agree they aren't news orgs, then the HuffPost isn't a news org.

pdkl95 10y ago

> controlling the types of news their consumers get Of course they are. They control the medium. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that "it's just an algorithm" isn't a defense. Just because a process involves calculation doesn't make the entire process free of bias or agenda. The basic decision to use an algorithm is an opinionated decision that affects the outcome. Personal opinion influences how an algorithm was chosen or designed, how it will be applied, the selection of input data, and every other decision made during implementation. Yes, some time may not intend to add their own bias and opinion, but it still happens. Jacob Appelbaum recently[1] discussed this problem; "Your politics are in everything that you write". The same is true for software and algorithms in general. Your politics are in everything you design. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it exists, and pretending that an an algorithm is "unbiased" or otherwise free from human influence and manipulation is foolish. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY#t=78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJValv4YQcY#t=78