3 ms·

"But with nearly two-thirds of Facebook users saying they get at least some of their news from the online platform, conservatives said any chance of bias could

"But with nearly two-thirds of Facebook users saying they get at least some of their news from the online platform, conservatives said any chance of bias could skew political conversations." I really don't understand this whole situation? How is this happening? If the argument is "We don't like how you're skewing news about our kind", how is this not seen as pure hypocrisy and laughed out of the room? Can you imagine the uproar by Conservatives if a Liberal group demanded a meeting with Roger Ailes over their manipulation of Liberal talking points, skewing political conversations across the country for the last 30 years? How can anyone on the Conservative side, especially pundits and politicians that rely on Fox News to spin their very special brand of stupid, stand up and say "Facebook is in the wrong?"

talmand 10y ago
Facebook admitted to the problem, so those people may be wrong about Fox News but in this case they were correct with Facebook. Just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't automatically make them wrong on everything else. That's just an excuse to dismiss them.
- westernmostcoy 10y ago
  Can you link to where they admit to anything more than the possibility of wrongdoing? What they're saying appears to be "we involved humans, we acknowledge humans can be biased, we will remove some human involvement going forward" which is very different than "we hid stories from sources we don't like." Some conservative groups (and the author of this article, seemingly) would have you think they acknowledged that they did something wrong but I only see them stating the opposite.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I don't need to link a source, you summed up my meaning of the problem they admitted to quite well on your own.
rhino369 10y ago
A key difference between Fox News and Facebook is that Fox commentators are pretty much advertising their bias. Bill Oreilly is clearly stating his personal opinions. Facebook is stating it's politically neutral but it wasn't. Another thing to considers is that Facebook is a monopoly in the social networking business. There are probably half a dozen news networks on a cable plan, plus nearly infinitely online news outlets. If you don't like Fox news, there is CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, etc. Facebook has no direct alternative.
- thisargisARGH23 10y ago
  Their tagline is "Fair and Balanced". In reality they're nothing of the sort. Here is a link describing how Trending topics works: https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641 https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641 Where does it state Trending topics is a neutral source for unbiased news? They admit readily that an algorithm does much of the work, but that it also relies on human intervention. And the Valley, including Zuckerberg, have worn their "liberal" ideals all over their sleeves via their actions. They sold people on a tagline, while never really being up front. Need I again quote Zuckerberg's infamous opinion on people trusting him? Let's not forget his shenanigans in India with "free" but hobbled internet. They're as open about how things really work as Fox. Unless Fox is suddenly inviting people into their meetings where editorial directives are discussed. They put some friendly language on there, making a vague claim, then feed people bullshit. The mental gymnastics people go through by blindly accepting such shallow rhetoric like "Fair and Balanced" or "We're neutral" without really verifying is bizarre. Facebook has competition in the form of dozens of news aggregators; Apple, Google, Microsoft, Pocket... This is about one feature of Facebook. Not the entire enchilada. My frustration is not with Facebook lacking competition. It's the aforementioned obtuse behavior of the populace at large, the mind-boggling mental gymnastics being employed, in thinking that these large, opaque corporate machines are focusing on the end user. The phrase "if it's a free service, you're the product, not the customer" comes to mind. Facebook sells eyeballs to others. They have little interest in being neutral.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts on HN. This forum is a community. Anonymity is fine here, but users should have some kind of consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we might as well have no usernames and no community at all, and that would be an entirely different forum.

talmand 10y ago

Facebook admitted to the problem, so those people may be wrong about Fox News but in this case they were correct with Facebook. Just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't automatically make them wrong on everything else. That's just an excuse to dismiss them.

westernmostcoy 10y ago
Can you link to where they admit to anything more than the possibility of wrongdoing? What they're saying appears to be "we involved humans, we acknowledge humans can be biased, we will remove some human involvement going forward" which is very different than "we hid stories from sources we don't like." Some conservative groups (and the author of this article, seemingly) would have you think they acknowledged that they did something wrong but I only see them stating the opposite.
- talmand 10y ago
  I don't need to link a source, you summed up my meaning of the problem they admitted to quite well on your own.

rhino369 10y ago

A key difference between Fox News and Facebook is that Fox commentators are pretty much advertising their bias. Bill Oreilly is clearly stating his personal opinions. Facebook is stating it's politically neutral but it wasn't. Another thing to considers is that Facebook is a monopoly in the social networking business. There are probably half a dozen news networks on a cable plan, plus nearly infinitely online news outlets. If you don't like Fox news, there is CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, etc. Facebook has no direct alternative.

thisargisARGH23 10y ago
Their tagline is "Fair and Balanced". In reality they're nothing of the sort. Here is a link describing how Trending topics works: https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641 https://www.facebook.com/help/737806312958641 Where does it state Trending topics is a neutral source for unbiased news? They admit readily that an algorithm does much of the work, but that it also relies on human intervention. And the Valley, including Zuckerberg, have worn their "liberal" ideals all over their sleeves via their actions. They sold people on a tagline, while never really being up front. Need I again quote Zuckerberg's infamous opinion on people trusting him? Let's not forget his shenanigans in India with "free" but hobbled internet. They're as open about how things really work as Fox. Unless Fox is suddenly inviting people into their meetings where editorial directives are discussed. They put some friendly language on there, making a vague claim, then feed people bullshit. The mental gymnastics people go through by blindly accepting such shallow rhetoric like "Fair and Balanced" or "We're neutral" without really verifying is bizarre. Facebook has competition in the form of dozens of news aggregators; Apple, Google, Microsoft, Pocket... This is about one feature of Facebook. Not the entire enchilada. My frustration is not with Facebook lacking competition. It's the aforementioned obtuse behavior of the populace at large, the mind-boggling mental gymnastics being employed, in thinking that these large, opaque corporate machines are focusing on the end user. The phrase "if it's a free service, you're the product, not the customer" comes to mind. Facebook sells eyeballs to others. They have little interest in being neutral.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts on HN. This forum is a community. Anonymity is fine here, but users should have some kind of consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we might as well have no usernames and no community at all, and that would be an entirely different forum.