3 ms·
I probably should have linked to this story: http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 http://gizmodo.com/former-fac
by chris_wot 11y ago
I probably should have linked to this story:
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...
But not just one person - Facebook had to apologise to John Dickson for deleting his post. So I ask you - what were they doing fooling around with his posts?
- jasonlotito 11y agoRead the story you linked to. Still only one person. "This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul..." You're confusing the multiple people who claimed they were asked to inject stories that weren't trending. In fact, you have multiple sources who contradict the opinion of your source: "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." Finally, underlying contention, that Facebook was at fault, is even denied by that same individual. "there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work." And finally, this is Gizmodo, so unless you have something from a trustworthy source, I would treat them as suspect at best.
- chris_wot 11y agoCurious, then, that John Dicksons post was specifically removed. Why was someone reviewing it at all? Sure, they accidentally deleted it - they admitted as much when they officially apologised to John. But then again, why was a staffer looking at Dicksons post at all?