3 ms·

> Republicans: because it has a well established anticonservative bias We should not take this claim about Facebook at face value, since the opposite is often

> Republicans: because it has a well established anticonservative bias We should not take this claim about Facebook at face value, since the opposite is often said, with some data to back it up: > the top 10 posts shared on Facebook in the past 24 hours, which almost always come predominantly from conservative voices https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/how-facebook-became-the-social-media-home-of-the-right https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/how-facebook-became-... > it is often conservatives who gain the most in terms of engagement and online attention https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtu... > Left-wing posts make the daily top-25 much less frequently https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/facebook-conservatives-2020-421146 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/facebook-conservati... etc https://www.vox.com/recode/21419328/facebook-conservative-bias-right-wing-crowdtangle-election https://www.vox.com/recode/21419328/facebook-conservative-bi... https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-crowdtangle-data-top-posts-conservative-outlets-2020-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-crowdtangle-data-to...

josefresco 5y ago
> some data to back it up https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
rndgermandude 5y ago
This does not say anything about facebook the company and it's leadership and employee base yet, it just says something about the user base and who is most active and thus most influential to the automated algorithms on that platform.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  It says enough about facebook the company after somebody makes an unsubstantiated claim like: "because it has a well established anticonservative bias".
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    Frankly it doesn't. That's just putting a correlation-is-causation lipstick on pig to counter another pig without lipstick.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      IDK is nuance is still a thing, but I said that the claim of a specific "well established" bias in Facebook "should not be taken at face value" and I think that there is enough evidence that it really isn't that simple or well-established, at all. That's not the same as one team "countering" the other.
      - rndgermandude 5y ago
        Then say that it's not well established (I agree with that, by the way), or ask to see the sources for this claim. But saying the top stories on fb actually prove anything in this regard is just not a sound argument to make.
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      You will notice that the person that said: "because it has a well established anticonservative bias", provided no source. Source was supplied that confirms that there is no anti conservative bias. Will you, maybe, provide us with that missing source? Maybe people claiming such things should first get some lipstick before making those claims..
      - rndgermandude 5y ago
        >You will notice that the person that said: "because it has a well established anticonservative bias", provided no source. Yes, I did notice that. That is an issue, but wasn't the issue I was talking about. Maybe you should ask that author for evidence and/or sources for this claim? >Will you, maybe, provide us with that missing source? No, I didn't make the claim, and I do not want to make that claim either. >Source was supplied that confirms that there is no anti conservative bias. Now that was the issue here I was talking about: user-generated "top stories" on some platform do not confirm/prove anything about the company itself. If facebook actually asserted human editorial control over those top stories, maybe, but they say they don't (except to fight illegal content, and certain kinds of hate speech or misinformation) and so far I have yet to see any evidence they do. All they really have is algorithms boosting content that is already smaller-scale going viral on it's own. So it only tells you something about the users on facebook at best, not the company.

josefresco 5y ago

> some data to back it up https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10

rndgermandude 5y ago

This does not say anything about facebook the company and it's leadership and employee base yet, it just says something about the user base and who is most active and thus most influential to the automated algorithms on that platform.

Kbelicius 5y ago
It says enough about facebook the company after somebody makes an unsubstantiated claim like: "because it has a well established anticonservative bias".
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  Frankly it doesn't. That's just putting a correlation-is-causation lipstick on pig to counter another pig without lipstick.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    IDK is nuance is still a thing, but I said that the claim of a specific "well established" bias in Facebook "should not be taken at face value" and I think that there is enough evidence that it really isn't that simple or well-established, at all. That's not the same as one team "countering" the other.
    - rndgermandude 5y ago
      Then say that it's not well established (I agree with that, by the way), or ask to see the sources for this claim. But saying the top stories on fb actually prove anything in this regard is just not a sound argument to make.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    You will notice that the person that said: "because it has a well established anticonservative bias", provided no source. Source was supplied that confirms that there is no anti conservative bias. Will you, maybe, provide us with that missing source? Maybe people claiming such things should first get some lipstick before making those claims..
    - rndgermandude 5y ago
      >You will notice that the person that said: "because it has a well established anticonservative bias", provided no source. Yes, I did notice that. That is an issue, but wasn't the issue I was talking about. Maybe you should ask that author for evidence and/or sources for this claim? >Will you, maybe, provide us with that missing source? No, I didn't make the claim, and I do not want to make that claim either. >Source was supplied that confirms that there is no anti conservative bias. Now that was the issue here I was talking about: user-generated "top stories" on some platform do not confirm/prove anything about the company itself. If facebook actually asserted human editorial control over those top stories, maybe, but they say they don't (except to fight illegal content, and certain kinds of hate speech or misinformation) and so far I have yet to see any evidence they do. All they really have is algorithms boosting content that is already smaller-scale going viral on it's own. So it only tells you something about the users on facebook at best, not the company.