Facebook Suppresses Conservative Views[W:133]

[ocean515]

So well chalk this up to either a made up story or it doesn't matter anyway because Facebook is a private entity and has no obligation to provide "balanced" reporting?

No, we'll chalk it up to a large publically traded corporation whose 10's of millions of customers are subject to the propaganda they invent.

 

[jonny5]

As Rush Limbaugh so aptly said, the bias isnt conscious. There is no conspiracy, or orders from management. Liberals just all naturally act the same way, suppressing dissenting views. Lois Lerner didnt get orders from Obama to harrass conservative groups. She knew that was expected of her when she was hired. Because thats what liberals do.

Same with facebook. They put biased people in charge of choosing the news knowing they will choose it in a way that promotes liberalism. No orders are needed.

 

[americanwoman]

Why don't conservatives start their own social media sites then? Sounds like there is a good market for it.

 

[Cardinal]

Why don't conservatives start their own social media sites then? Sounds like there is a good market for it.

Indeed. They created an entirely new reality with Conservapedia, so I should think creating yet another conservative social media echo chamber would be as simple as hitting two rocks together.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Indeed. They created an entirely new reality with Conservapedia, so I should think creating a simple conservative social media echo chamber would be as simple as hitting two rocks together.

Trump supporters already have their own social media site.

Called Stormfront :lol:

 

[TheGoverness]

Indeed. They created an entirely new reality with Conservapedia, so I should think creating yet another conservative social media echo chamber would be as simple as hitting two rocks together.

How about Encyclopedia Dramatica? They take it to a whole new level of offensive.

 

[Cardinal]

Trump supporters already have their own social media site.

Called Stormfront :lol:

I just checked in on Lucianne because this thread reminded me of it. The policy has changed, but when I was last there non-conservative posts and links to liberal-leaning news sites were specifically prohibited by the forum rules. I would imagine that this was seen at the time as less Stasi-esque and more a demonstration of the right to conduct their personal site as they saw fit.

 

[Cardinal]

How about Encyclopedia Dramatica? They take it to a whole new level of offensive.

What the hell is that? The layout of that site made my eyes bleed.

 

[Henrin]

How about Encyclopedia Dramatica? They take it to a whole new level of offensive.

That site is awesome. :lol:

 

[TheGoverness]

That site is awesome. :lol:

I agree. It is pretty damn funny.

 

[pdog]

No, we'll chalk it up to a large publically traded corporation whose 10's of millions of customers are subject to the propaganda they invent.

Still don't see a point or what you want to do with it.

 

[Mr Person]

So? Last I recall, the conservative viewpoint is that businesses should be free to operate how they will.

That's only when said businesses don't want to sell things to gay people.

 

[shelphs]

Well now. This seems like a crude imposition of bias. Do lots of people get their news from Facebook?

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative NewsGizmodo‎ - 1 day ago

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from ... one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team.

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module. . . .

True or not true, the issue remains that users/consumers can be legally and routinely lied to and mislead. Transparency in corporations' claims are needed. A feed labelled as user-influenced should only be user-influenced unless otherwise advertised.

To take this even further, claims of being the best of anything specific, e.g., internet provider, antiperspirant, etc, or being most effective should require studies in support of claims, i.e., how effective exactly. Meaning, research is needed to show why these claims are thought true, which can be made available online (government owned site or companies' own).

Companies don't have thoughts and ideas like individuals and they shouldn't have the free speech of individuals to make 'belief speech.' Additional regulation is required. Humanity's social improvements have depended on regulating businesses.

Data is ever important in social planning, legislative policy and corporate strategy. Users/consumers should demand fair trade and require beneficial data in return like evidence-based claims.

Demand better products!

 

[sangha]

Indeed. They created an entirely new reality with Conservapedia, so I should think creating yet another conservative social media echo chamber would be as simple as hitting two rocks together.

That might give them a concussion

 

[ocean515]

Still don't see a point or what you want to do with it.

I'm confident nothing could convince you to conclude otherwise. eace

 

[pdog]

I'm confident nothing could convince you to conclude otherwise. eace

Sure you could, you could actually make a point. Even if you can't put that together, you could give some idea of what you propose we do with this bias if you believe that it's wrong.

 

[beefheart]

Facebook Trending Topics are Curated by Editors, Not an Algorithm, Leaked Documents Reveal - Hit & Run : Reason.com

According to the internal documents, Facebook relies on only 10 mainstream news sites (BBC News, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Yahoo News or Yahoo) to determine whether a story is legitimately trending, though Facebook gave the Guardian of a list of 1000 "trusted sites," including conservative ones, used to "verify and characterize" the stories being considered for the Trending section.

Though the word "blacklist" carries some pretty sinister connotations and was used by the ex-staffer in the Gizmodo piece to suggest a political bias at the company, its appearance as a topic ("Blacklisting items") in the Facebook guidelines has more to do with avoiding duplicate stories or misleading topics than it does with avoiding any particular politics.

Though the intent behind "blacklisting" topics is to keep staffers from having to review the same topic over and over again, this unfortunately phrased sentence taken out of context could certainly ruffle some feathers: "Our bias is to blacklist topics for the maximum of 24 hours in almost all cases."

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

not surprising, democrats don't tolerate dissent, so this is in keeping. fortunately democrats also don't work, so their corrupt systems have a limited shelf life.

 

[Kobie]

not surprising, democrats don't tolerate dissent, so this is in keeping. fortunately democrats also don't work, so their corrupt systems have a limited shelf life.

:roll:

 

[Grim17]

Tsk tsk. You can do better than that.

No... no I don't believe he can.

 

[Deuce]

Good. Mass-abandon facebook, conservatives, so I stop having to see your absurd articles on ****ty blogs all day.

 

[Cardinal]

Good. Mass-abandon facebook, conservatives, so I stop having to see your absurd articles on ****ty blogs all day.

In the majority of circumstances we don't even see the posts of non-ideologically similar Facebook friends anyway. I still do because I very specifically try not to create a political bubble filter for myself so that I can still even see the posts of valuable, contributing Facebook members. Although, come to think of it, I haven't seen one particular Trump supporter's posts in a really long time, so it's possible I may have unwittingly created a bubble filter anyway. If so it's testament to why nobody should ever use Facebook as a news source.