Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News • Hacker News Board

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#201

Post by michaelbuddy » Mon, May 09, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #183

michaelbuddy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As long as you choose to consume their product, you get the results of their work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Except when you don't know what you aren't seeing. >Those aren't news organizations. Breitbart has teams of reporters and editors, so does Infowars. Breitbart has offices in different locations, such as London and the U.S. Breitbart has it's reporters following the campaign and they get many exclusive…

Who said that HuffPo was a news org? They're an ideological blog. Just like Breitbart is an ideological blog. Having offices doesn't make one a news org. Why are you making arguments against claims I never made? Also, why do libertarians hate it so much when people use their own basic ideology against them?

> Having offices doesn't make one a news org.

No, having reporters and editors who cover current events does. The reason I brought up huffpost was anyone saying breitbart isn't news, immediately I'd have to test them with HuffPo. You know to spot the hypocrite. But anyway, HuffPo and Breitbart are both news orgs like it or not. News has always been slanted whether by selective coverage or the way things are framed. Example: 2 stories about refugees, one covers a family (with photos) where the children speak english (outliers) The other covers a boat load of military age males (again with photos), talks about concern over violence and culture war.

Both would be news stories. One you're likely to find in NPR or the Washington Post, the other you'll find on Breitbart. Sorry you're wrong about what's a news source and what's not. feel free to comment on quality or slant though.

>Why do libertarians... I don't know, ask them.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#202

Post by protomyth » Mon, May 09, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #34

carsongross wrote: post #17

I am a conservative and I see nothing wrong with this. It is their software and their servers, after all. I want a collapse in trust in the major social networks. This is the internet we are talking about. Let them suppress, and let them see what happens.

If this was a partisan media outlet like CNN, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, etc etc ad nauseam or FOX news (is there any other conservative network?), then yeah this would be expected. The issue here is for the 'unsuspecting user' Facebook doesn't present itself as a partisan resource. There's nothing 'wrong' with this per se as long as the user understands who they are dealing with, which articles like this one help in that respe…

> FOX news (is there any other conservative network?)

Not on TV. Fox Business has quite a lot of libertarians (and some really, really devote Trump supporters). CNN did hire some conservatives who are actual conservatives recently (e.g. Mary Katharine Ham), but it really doesn't change the editorial.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#203

Post by pdkl95 » Mon, May 09, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

jobadev wrote: post #184

dragonwriter wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting with a straight face that CNN "News" is fair and balanced? No, it just has slightly weaker right-wing bias than Fox.

That's why they support Hillary.

CNN (and many other media companies) support Hillary because they are pro-corporate and pro-status-quo.

They have de facto supported nonsensical positions because CNN pioneered the "two sides to every argument" stupidity in their effort to look "unbiased". CNN's reporting is heavily distorted, but the distortion is usually giving credibility when it isn't deserved. Fox simply pushes their agenda directly, while CNN gives cranks a stage no matter how stupid their position is, because calling out even the obviously wrong is "biased". Often this involves conservative opinions (for varying definitions of "conservative"), but almost every opinion of every topic gets the same treatment from CNN.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#204

Post by golemotron » Mon, May 09, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

throwit992 wrote: post #138

I have no great love of conservative politics, but there's a convincing argument to be made that their ideas and views are routinely suppressed by media outside of explicitly partisan media outlets (i.e. Fox News or talk radio). There are a number of studies that back up this claim. A 2008 study[0] found that 88% of journalists donate to the Democratic party. Jonathan Haidt has shown[1] that non-economics social scie…

> Even if you, like me, generally believe that the liberal political position is correct, ideological conformity of this magnitude should frighten you.

What it does is make people whose views fall out of that bubble feel disenfranchised. This is no small part of the Trump phenomenon.

I was watching a documentary about South American politics yesterday and there was a globalist establishment candidate running against one that was a protectionist populist. It was strange to see that the globalist was on the right and the protectionist was on the left and that is exactly the opposite of what we are seeing in the US election this year. After decades of people on the left lamenting that working class Republicans don't vote in their own interest the left is in a panic now because they are.

No one saw this coming and the media lock down is the reason why. When it's easy to smear anyone who does not take a globalist position as a racist that part of political discourse goes underground until it pops up in the voting booth.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#205

Post by sremani » Mon, May 09, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #199

sremani wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The party establishments play the Culture card, you can see Hillary Clinton playing the Culture card all the time. If you really observe, its the Rebels (Sanders and Trump) talking economics, and Establishment(Cruz/Clinton/Bush) talking about Gays, Guns and God.

I think Clinton's main social points in terms of get-out-to-vote issues are abortion and immigration. I don't think Gays, Guns, and God are get-out-to-vote issues for Sanders, Clinton, or Trump. Those votes aren't easy to secure for these candidates. My point is not that Democrats or the GOP have social issues as part of get-out-to-vote drives. My point is to look at the content of the GOP points, whether on scientif…

Abortion is a cultural issue, and which ever politician talks about Abortion for or against, is playing the classic textbook cultural partisanship game. Immigration is a bit complicated, but can be boiled down to both culture and economics. Clinton talks about tolerance(cultural), Trump talks about jobs(economics) being lost to immigration and open borders.

In my opinion Trump is not about 2016, but we will likely have a President in 2028 who runs on the Trump agenda of Native Populism, in a world of automation and globalization, his message is only going to get popular.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#206

Post by thesimpsons1022 » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

“Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

How awful.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#207

Post by eanzenberg » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #27

nil_is_me wrote: post #7

It has been blatantly clear something is up with their Trending algorithm when you notice there is a Trending: Hillary Clinton header on top of every single shared Bernie Sanders article. Never once have I seen a Trending: Bernie Sander header.

I suspect this is more a result of the media's heavy pro-Clinton bias rather than any overt attempt by Facebook. Remember that the mainstream media is ultimately the primary driver of these algorithms.

Actually.. Hillary has received the most negative media articles out of any candidate, including Trump.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-...

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#208

Post by trhway » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

throwit992 wrote: post #138

I have no great love of conservative politics, but there's a convincing argument to be made that their ideas and views are routinely suppressed by media outside of explicitly partisan media outlets (i.e. Fox News or talk radio). There are a number of studies that back up this claim. A 2008 study[0] found that 88% of journalists donate to the Democratic party. Jonathan Haidt has shown[1] that non-economics social scie…

> non-economics social sciences skew more than 14-1 liberal to conservative

isn't it so for every science? I mean it is only natural that the conservative views are displaced by education and scientific knowledge. That is almost by definition.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#209

Post by duaneb » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

shepardrtc wrote: post #115

duaneb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the evidence isn't there doesn't mean there wasn't downward pressure from management. Look at the art of dodging blame as practiced by VW.

There wasn't any evidence and there wasn't any implication from the article. It's very different from the VW scandal.

This does not imply a lack of evidence, though. The appropriate response would be to ask for a deeper inquiry. Otherwise you're just enabling scapegoating if you accept the first view without any question.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#210

Post by Karunamon » Mon, May 09, 2016, 7:09 PM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #198

nashashmi wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's news feed algorithm to promote one candidate ... would be its prerogative under the First Amendment As long such practices are declared. People tend to look at "what's trending" in an effort to optimize/manipulate their content so that users would "trend" on it. The fact that FB was artificially eliminating stories gave false results to observers. Another way of looking at this is if Nielson were to lower the…

Nielsen makes specific claims about the meaning of its data to people who pay for that data, so it would be fraud for them to undermine those claims by manipulating the data. I doubt Facebook does anything similar.

What about to the advertisers? If I were a well-funded news outlet with a conservative bias, and I spent money on Facebook, I'd be evaluating my legal options right about now...