It's None Of The Government's Business If Facebook Hates Conservatives
Hates -- or whatever Facebook's management might think of conservatives and news that swings right.
The story is that the bits in Facebook's trending news didn't include those that are right-swinging.
Gizmodo's Michael Nunez writes:
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.
In other words, Facebook's news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing--but it is in stark contrast to the company's claims that the trending module simply lists "topics that have recently become popular on Facebook."
Facebook denies the allegation.
Of course, the government had to get it's sticky claws into this.
In The New York Times, Nick Corsanti and Mike Isaac write that John Thune, a Republican and chairman of the Commerce Committee, demanded answers from Facebook as to whether they did suppress articles from conservative sources.
In a letter, the chairman, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, asked Facebook to describe the steps it was taking to investigate the claims and to provide any records about articles that its news curators had excluded or added. Mr. Thune also asked directly whether the curators had "in fact manipulated the content," something Facebook denied in a statement on Monday."If there's any level of subjectivity associated with it, or if, as reports have suggested that there might have been, an attempt to suppress conservative stories or keep them from trending and get other stories out there, I think it's important for people to know that," Mr. Thune told reporters on Tuesday.
Again, I think it's none of the government's fucking business. First Amendment, anyone? Apparently not well-understood by a powerful standing U.S. Senator.
Finally, if your news comes from the tiny trending bits on the sidebar of Facebook, you're about as informed politically as my desk lamp, and I ask that you not vote.
Reynolds.
Crid at May 12, 2016 1:06 AM
I don't remember seeing news stories on my Facebook. Maybe I just haven't been looking for them. In any case, I never thought of Facebook as a news source, except for updates on my friends' kids and such.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at May 12, 2016 5:03 AM
Here's the deal, though. Plenty of people who do get their news only from there (or there and comedy central), do vote. FB has become more than just a private company. Do you agree CNN should have the freedom to censor their news? (I know they do, but they shouldn't). Accurate and open access to all the news, is a cornerstone of a free republic. FB needs to have unbiased trends, or no trends.
momof4 at May 12, 2016 5:32 AM
No, Facebook is still a private company no mater how influential it has become. Facebook just needs to be honest about what it is doing. The constant lying is the issue. CNN can and does use editorial discretion just like any other media company. Facebook can do the same. The only issue is Facebook's false claims of neutrality. Truth in advertising and wot not.
Ben at May 12, 2016 6:00 AM
Fakebook should be allowed to do whatever they want to do.
That said, Fakebook should not lie to its users about how it goes about things. If Zuckerberg wants to hire a bunch of fresh out of Ivy League children to create "safe spaces" for its "news" feeds, that's his business.
But don't claim there is an algorithm doing the grunt work. Own the bias. Be proud of it.
Then let the market decide if alienating a sizable portion of your potential clientele is a good business plan.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2016 6:33 AM
It's not the censorship, it's the lying about the censorship. Change the name to Fakebook, end of problem. I have no problem with George Stephanopoulos being a media hack. I have a problem with him claiming to be a neutral media hack. He is a partisan Democrat with a microphone. That's OK, because I know enough to seek out the other side of the story.
Many people have a powerful need to belong, and adopting the beliefs of others matters to them. I seem to be missing that gene, so I'm not on Facebook and thus immune to whatever they are pitching (and taking.)
MarkD at May 12, 2016 6:39 AM
Wrong.
Facebook is a public company. It's stock is for sale to the public on a regulated exchange. The sale of said stock is, therefore, subject to SEC jurisdiction.
Now, manipulating its newsfeed, while not under the SEC umbrella, is something that should be of concern to all Facebook users and to the public at large. As momof4 mentioned, many people (voters) get their "news" from non-traditional sources like Facebook, Comedy Central, talk shows et al. If Facebook is selling itself as an impartial amalgamator of news, its practice of censoring news is deceitful.
The issue is not new. Let's keep in mind, one of the reasons for the rise of Fox News and talk radio was the perception that the large media companies at the time (CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS) were selective in the news they chose to present to the public.
The Internet allows user to seek out new sources of news. And, ultimately, to structure their own news feeds to confirm their own biases. This is the main source of voter ignorance.
Voter ignorance is an issue that plagues this republic. While it's not Facebook's job to eliminate it, it does not reflect well on the company that it chose to perpetuate it.
Conan the Grammarian at May 12, 2016 6:44 AM
They're on the right Old R P M. Mainly about Kardashians, etc.
This is no more a source of news than my neighbor is.
There are COUNTLESS sources of news all over the Internet. The fact that a broad spectrum of it is not immediately available to you when you log in to find out what Buffy did...this is not a matter of public interest.
I follow people on the right and left and in between and out in the ether. This gives me differing viewpoints on Facebook. Anyone can do this!
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2016 7:28 AM
"it's sticky claws" should be "its sticky claws"
Renee at May 12, 2016 7:49 AM
I think the issue is not free speech, but consumer fraud. It's fine for Facebook to be biased, but to lie about it is fraud.
Also, I think you can be certain that if Facebook had been proven to censor liberal views and rig elections against the Democrats, the Department of Justice would have been investigating long ago.
Snoopy at May 12, 2016 7:59 AM
"Voter ignorance is an issue that plagues this republic. While it's not Facebook's job to eliminate it, it does not reflect well on the company that it chose to perpetuate it."-Conan
I don't think they see it as perpetuating voter ignorance. I think they see it as making sure that subscribers have the "right" information, and they probably feel pretty self-righteous about it. I don't think they see it as suppressing information, I think they attach less importance to views they disagree with, and stories that support those views.
Of course, they can do what they want. It would be better if they were honest about it. I don't get my news from Facebook, and I try to read news from sources both left and right. But all I see in my FB feed is stupid listicles and clickbait stories from "content producers." ("You won't believe number 7!"
ahw at May 12, 2016 8:22 AM
I have always been curious about the relationship between Facebook and the government when I noticed that many DOD organizations, maintained their public websites on Facebook rather than government servers. This happened as most of the DOD web sites began requiring a secure CAC card log in.
Once you have gotten in bed with the government to this extent, you are hardly a private company anymore.
Conan makes some extremely legitimate points.
You are, at a minimum, subject to FCC regulations. And screening out conservative news stories and organizations may very well be a violation of various and sundry public communications regulations.
I was forced to get a Facebook account when my husband took a job at an AFB in Japan. Without it, I could not get info about the AMC flight schedules.
It has no profile information. I will never put any in.
You can bet your bottom dollar, that no one is going to be investigating Facebook with another democrat in the White House.
Isab at May 12, 2016 8:26 AM
It's an easy solution; let the market decide. Let people decide whether they want to click on Facebook "news" links, or even use Facebook at all.
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.
So if they're "organically trending," what's the problem?
but it is in stark contrast to the company's claims that the trending module simply lists "topics that have recently become popular on Facebook."
I don't necessarily think that The New York Times actually reports "all the news that's fit to print," nor that Fox News is necessarily "fair and balanced." But these are not claims like "50 percent juice" or "100 percent Egyptian cotton." And I'm not sure what the government should have to do with it.
Kevin at May 12, 2016 9:08 AM
"Wrong.
Facebook is a public company."
I was trying to make the distinction that Facebook is not a government entity as my reference to CNN should have made clear. NBC and Fox are also public companies. But since they are not the government they have no requirement to be non-partisan.
The issue is truth in advertising. Facebook most likely made false claims about how it was delivering news. Those false claims are the issue and not the bias.
Ben at May 12, 2016 10:06 AM
FB is a private company which is publicly-held. It does not have any requirements to be non-partisan, but its shareholders DO have a requirement to act in the best interests of shareholders, as fiduciaries.
Sooner or later, it is going to be litigated whether the political slant of Company X is consistent with those fiduciary obligations, or whether Company X is being managed in substantial part to promote the personal political beliefs of its senior executives.
David Foster at May 12, 2016 10:42 AM
I admire the cleanly capitalist and libertarian impulses of this blog post. Nonetheless:
> Finally, if your news comes from
> the tiny trending bits on the
> sidebar of Facebook, you're about
> as informed politically as my desk
> lamp, and I ask that you not vote.
We don't get to tell people what news sources they can use, any more than we can tell people what their religious texts are supposed to mean to them. The rest of the planet is too torpid and cowardly to appreciate free expression. And the First Amendment is wobbling here at home, especially for incoming generations of coddled ninnies who think life is supposed to be flattering and comforting. So... Hand's off.
Yet I agree with Shapiro: Facebook is the most powerful cultural force in the world. It's weaknesses and deficiencies are not small and not unimportant. They deserve identification and dispassionate challenge from every conscious mind, whether or not on the platform itself. As with so much of our civilization, if people were paying the attention they should be paying, government wouldn't have a chance to get in there and make things worse.
More...
Crid at May 12, 2016 10:50 AM
...And meanwhile— Kash gets a little off track here, but fish don't know they're wet.
Crid at May 12, 2016 10:51 AM
...Until they flop up on the rocks in the hot sun, I mean, at which point the other fish aren't going to be sympathetic.
Yeah-- If you try to make sense of the world through the pandering cat photos of Facebook, the planet is going to kick you teeth in. That's what happened to people who tried to navigate their lives through the simpering narratives of television, too.
They mostly deserve it. Invest in restorative dentistry.
Crid at May 12, 2016 10:54 AM
The Obama administration, Facebook's first, has fucked a lot of things up. We ought not deny his many, many voters the shame and impoverishment of their outcome.
Hope, y'know?
Crid at May 12, 2016 10:57 AM
Was Kash clear about this?
Fish don't even know they're fish... Engineers in general (and you can trust me on this) tend to be less-sociable personalities, un-engaged in rhetoric or Big Themes. We can readily imagine those guys squelching conservatism at the algorithmic level and not know they're doing it.
Crid at May 12, 2016 11:12 AM
Facebook was claiming it simply reported "trending" which implies hands-off. It is like the supposed difference between the news page and the editorial page. Or if a survey claimed to be a random sample but was actually a sample of those who donated to Democrats. Or a claim that a cereal is "enriched" but it is not. It is about fraudulent commercial claims.
I think Twitter and Facebook need to be careful about their bias because it WILL become known and then they will (did for both) lose trust as well as inviting government scrutiny.
Craig Loehle at May 12, 2016 11:55 AM
Better distinction. Thanks.
Point taken. Yes, Facebook, being a private entity, has all the freedom of speech and freedom from speech regulation that a private citizen would have. Like Chick-Fil-A and Ben and Jerry's, Facebook can espouse any political viewpoint it wants - and suffer the market consequences of doing so.
The problem is, there's an alternative to Chick-Fil-A and Ben and Jerry's. Facebook is the medium as well as the gatekeeper - and, to Crid's point, things can get messy when the medium becomes the message.
Conan the Grammarian at May 12, 2016 12:11 PM
There are alternatives to Facebook Conan. Not as popular but they exist. And if Facebook fails to keep it's audience then newer groups can tear them to shreds. Claiming Facebook doesn't have competition is the same argument the feds made against Haagen Dazs, claiming they were the only 'super premium' ice cream on the market and thus in need of government regulation.
Also, as many have noted before me, Facebook is a for profit company. If you aren't paying you aren't a customer. Instead you are a consumed resource.
David Foster, on the issue of partisanship being grounds for SEC regulation Ben and Jerry's ran into that one a few years back. The former owners were acting like they were still the sole owners and spending company money on their own political projects. They got caught and punished by the courts. Companies can engage in political speech but if they are publicly held they must meet their fiduciary obligations as you point out. I would not expect such rules to apply to this situation.
Ben at May 12, 2016 12:40 PM
There are alternatives to Facebook Conan. Not as popular but they exist. And if Facebook fails to keep it's audience then newer groups can tear them to shreds.
Yup. Anyone remember MySpace?
The post-millennials in my office all seem to have Facebook but don't use it much; it's an old person's technology to them.
In any case, people are welcome to use or not use Facebook; develop or not develop alternatives; or go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. Instead it seems the thumbsuckers are running to Daddy Congress for "hearings," and the D.C. dopes are all too willing to preen for them.
Kevin Allman at May 12, 2016 12:48 PM
Moar.
Crid at May 12, 2016 1:30 PM
> Twitter and Facebook need to be
> careful about their bias because
> it WILL become known and then they
> will (did for both) lose trust as
> well as inviting government
> scrutiny.
Their mere success will invite government scrutiny... In both instances, the platforms are editorial as adoring of government as any GS-15 could hope for.
Crid at May 12, 2016 1:46 PM
Facebook is pretty open about all this stuff and has been for some quite some time. Like if you have the app on your phone welcome to you being spied on at all times for even non-Facebook stuff.
My take isn't they are using Facebooks personal agenda to sell you their political spin but rather the user base is inherently liberal and so Facebook took that info to make itself more appealing to that particular base and filtered news accordingly. Same as happens on like every website you visit. Take Reddit--heavily filtered and leaning towards white faux liberal suburban techie males under 30.
Also Facebook is dying out.It's all about Snapchat.
Ppen at May 12, 2016 5:03 PM
Moar fuckballs.
By the suspicious nature Twitter so readily encourages, it may a better fiscal circumstance to have this guy out of the arena and tucked safely into a $2 million office somewhere.
Crid at May 12, 2016 7:36 PM
...From Zuck's perspective, I mean.
Crid at May 13, 2016 1:40 AM
It isn't that Facebook's users are more liberal but the drive from advertisers. That is also what drives the increasing bias at Reddit and Fark among others. If you want those sweet Google dollars for placing adds you have to follow their rules. And liberals are far more likely to complain if they see something they don't like. So advertisers try very hard to not tick off the far left.
That is the price of 'free'. Servers and bandwidth have to be paid for.
Ben at May 13, 2016 7:03 AM
I have no sympathy. Throw the fucking book at them. Alinsky rules.
Cousin Dave at May 13, 2016 7:38 AM
You want a social networking app or site that agrees with your political views, go build one.
This is America. Pull on your big girl panties and get to work.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 13, 2016 3:38 PM
None for practical purposes.
Try connecting with all your friends on Google+.
NextDoor is limited by geography, so there's no building a network with old friends scattered across the country.
LinkedIn is primarily focused on business networking. So, it's less than ideal when a friend starts tagging you doing tequila shots at Señor Frog's.
Twitter, Snapchat, Periscope, etc. function mainly as message sights, like an amateur radio operator sending signal out into the ether and awaiting a response. Great for creating a mass conversation on breaking news, less than great for more intimate interactions among a group of friends.
Facebook is the dominant social media platform by a wide margin, to the extent that there are no real alternatives at this point in time.
Conan the Grammarian at May 13, 2016 4:14 PM
I can't even connect with my friends on Facebook. So from where I sit it's all the same. But my parents used to like checking up on the family that way.
Either way, if you are arguing Facebook is a monopoly then there are laws for that. Or build your own competitor. Though you will run into exactly the same funding issues Facebook has if you go route two. Either way the ability to exercise editorial discretion is not part of the conversation.
Ben at May 14, 2016 3:25 PM
Facebook is, for better or worse, the dominant social media platform. And things get messy when the dominant media platform takes an editorial stance. Witness what happened when the major television networks embraced the Democratic Party and the Left.
Talk radio rose as an alternative. And, despite its dominance now, Facebook will find itself challenged by something else if it embraces a political agenda.
However, much like talk radio vs. television networks, split media will cater to separate audiences and reinforce existing biases, further splitting the US population along partisan political lines.
Government intervention isn't the answer. The Fairness Doctrine was anything but and contributed more to the partisan divide than any talk radio host.
As I said earlier, things get messy when the medium becomes the message.
Conan the Grammarian at May 14, 2016 9:10 PM
I don't see a way around that other than further market fragmentation Conan. That way you get more of a rainbow of opinions instead of just two options.
Now, as your point demonstrates it is important for Facebook to appear neutral in order to retain users and profitability. But I don't see it as a national concern. As their bias becomes obvious an alternative will form to support the disaffected market. The worst situation is what we already had. Facebook appearing neutral while actually being quite biased.
Ben at May 15, 2016 7:25 PM
Leave a comment