4 ms·

Facebook Manipulated the News You See to Appease Republicans, Insiders Say

29 points by pulisse 6y ago

rbecker 6y ago
> Mother Jones was singled out as one that would suffer, while the conservative site the Daily Wire was identified as one that would benefit. Implicit is the assumption that the baseline, before these adjustments were made, was "correct", and that the adjustments unfairly altered it. But from what we know, the baseline was just as arbitrary as the adjustments. Why was the original algorithm okay, but changing it is "manipulation"?
- tathougies 6y ago
  Because Mother Jones is interested in parroting a narrative. Don't forget this same magazine wrote articles in favor of California jailing David Daleiden for the crime of exposing criminal activity that resulted in a Congressional investigation and widespread condemnation by the American people.
Lammy 6y ago
> But, says the former Facebook employee, there was a hitch: Everyone knew that most of the untrustworthy “junk” on Facebook, when it came to politics, originated with “conservative/conspiratorial” sites. "Everyone knows <thing I want you to believe>" is my very favorite form of Weasel Words.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  Back in my day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, “weasel words” were “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated”...so sort of the opposite of the unprovable hyperbole of “everyone knew”. The phraseology isn’t vague or ambiguous, just absurd. But the American Heritage Dictionary says it also means “a word used to qualify a statement so as to make it potentially misleading“, so the phrase “everybody knew” would count as weasel words. (The phrase “weasel words” has a great etymology that others can look up on their own...) Many examples of the first definition of weasel words can be found in the British comedies “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”. E.g. Sir Humphrey: Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. Hacker: Epistemological — what are you talking about? Sir Humphrey: You told a lie.
spacemanmatt 6y ago
As an occasional user, massive "duh" warning. It became so obvious that I got tired of the constant fear-mongering from the ads and quit getting on.
throw93 6y ago
This is eerily similar to what happened in India. It was alleged that a certain Facebook official resisted banning certain profiles, despite recommendations from their own team, only because those profiles belonged to high ranking BJP(ruling party) leaders and banning them would hurt their profitability. Interestingly the ruling party in India is right wing as well. However I think Facebook is just driven by profitability rather than any political inclination. Reference: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53803256 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53803256

29 points by pulisse 6y ago

> Mother Jones was singled out as one that would suffer, while the conservative site the Daily Wire was identified as one that would benefit. Implicit is the assumption that the baseline, before these adjustments were made, was "correct", and that the adjustments unfairly altered it. But from what we know, the baseline was just as arbitrary as the adjustments. Why was the original algorithm okay, but changing it is "manipulation"?

tathougies 6y ago
Because Mother Jones is interested in parroting a narrative. Don't forget this same magazine wrote articles in favor of California jailing David Daleiden for the crime of exposing criminal activity that resulted in a Congressional investigation and widespread condemnation by the American people.

Lammy 6y ago

> But, says the former Facebook employee, there was a hitch: Everyone knew that most of the untrustworthy “junk” on Facebook, when it came to politics, originated with “conservative/conspiratorial” sites. "Everyone knows <thing I want you to believe>" is my very favorite form of Weasel Words.

onecommentman 6y ago
Back in my day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, “weasel words” were “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated”...so sort of the opposite of the unprovable hyperbole of “everyone knew”. The phraseology isn’t vague or ambiguous, just absurd. But the American Heritage Dictionary says it also means “a word used to qualify a statement so as to make it potentially misleading“, so the phrase “everybody knew” would count as weasel words. (The phrase “weasel words” has a great etymology that others can look up on their own...) Many examples of the first definition of weasel words can be found in the British comedies “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”. E.g. Sir Humphrey: Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. Hacker: Epistemological — what are you talking about? Sir Humphrey: You told a lie.

spacemanmatt 6y ago

As an occasional user, massive "duh" warning. It became so obvious that I got tired of the constant fear-mongering from the ads and quit getting on.

throw93 6y ago

This is eerily similar to what happened in India. It was alleged that a certain Facebook official resisted banning certain profiles, despite recommendations from their own team, only because those profiles belonged to high ranking BJP(ruling party) leaders and banning them would hurt their profitability. Interestingly the ruling party in India is right wing as well. However I think Facebook is just driven by profitability rather than any political inclination. Reference: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53803256 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53803256