4 ms·

No. That does not happen. I worked on it. If you read all the articles, all of them tell the exact same story. Trends are detected, and then approved to go into

No. That does not happen. I worked on it. If you read all the articles, all of them tell the exact same story. Trends are detected, and then approved to go into a candidate set to be algorithmically ranked for each person. As part of approval, the curators write the headline, snippet, and choose the top article on the results page according to a standard that insists on an unbiased widely recognized news source. The accusation of bias boils down to, "I wanted to link to Breitbart, but that's not unbiased source, so I had to link to the AP." Well call the whambulance! You can't link to alternet either.

rdancer 11y ago
The criteria for allowing a source are not objective — and how could they be, when all sources are more or less bad? I understand that on the same story you will allow sheer propaganda from the BBC, but don't allow a factual report from The Intercept. The latter is unlikely to be a comfortable read, and may lead to some users quitting. But don't pretend there is some objective measure of "unbiased" that for example The Guardian or BBC pass and other outlets don't. That is the same mindset any gatekeeper has: to bring the best news to the readers, where "best" is of course subjective. Be it with an algorithm or directly, Facebook editorializes — heavily, it would appear.
ikeyany 11y ago
> the curators write the headline, snippet, and choose the top article on the results page according to a standard that insists on an unbiased widely recognized news source An unbiased news source does not exist. The very fact that 'newsworthiness' is subjective should be tipping you off.
- jonathankoren 11y ago
  If you think topics such as #PoemYourLife and #1LineWed are newsworthy, you're welcome to it.
  - ikeyany 11y ago
    It's more that a source like the NYTimes has biases of its own, that you seem to think doesn't count as 'actual' bias.

rdancer 11y ago

The criteria for allowing a source are not objective — and how could they be, when all sources are more or less bad? I understand that on the same story you will allow sheer propaganda from the BBC, but don't allow a factual report from The Intercept. The latter is unlikely to be a comfortable read, and may lead to some users quitting. But don't pretend there is some objective measure of "unbiased" that for example The Guardian or BBC pass and other outlets don't. That is the same mindset any gatekeeper has: to bring the best news to the readers, where "best" is of course subjective. Be it with an algorithm or directly, Facebook editorializes — heavily, it would appear.

ikeyany 11y ago

> the curators write the headline, snippet, and choose the top article on the results page according to a standard that insists on an unbiased widely recognized news source An unbiased news source does not exist. The very fact that 'newsworthiness' is subjective should be tipping you off.

jonathankoren 11y ago
If you think topics such as #PoemYourLife and #1LineWed are newsworthy, you're welcome to it.
- ikeyany 11y ago
  It's more that a source like the NYTimes has biases of its own, that you seem to think doesn't count as 'actual' bias.