2 ms·

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 acti

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.

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.