Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 368 posts

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#261

Post by MustardTiger »

pyoung wrote: post #236
protomyth wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of that might be that conservatives and moderates hear the liberal opinion expressed in so many out outlets that it is fairly easy to give an accurate answer where liberals hear what liberal outlets think conservatives think which is sensationalized to gain eyeballs. I was taught to be able to argue the other sides opinion as well because then you truly understand what you believe.

Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Tax cuts marketed as economic stimulus, attacks on regulations and consumer/environmental protections marketed as 'making government more efficient', racial oppression disguised as drug/crime laws, universal health ca…

>Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for.

Then why do only liberals have a problem understanding it? Why are moderates and conservatives able to understand without difficulty? Are they not "lay person"s?

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#262

Post by pklausler »

nibs wrote: post #173
pklausler wrote: post #100

Perhaps Facebook was suppressing "news" items contradicted by empirical reality, and this policy disproportionately affected conservative positions.

Have you ever breached the subject of intelligence/IQ science, evolutionary biology or being pro-GMO with "progressive" "educated" "liberals" before? Systemic blind spots exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

All the time. I love arguing about GMOs with people whose diets consist of anything that wasn't available in the wild 10,000 years ago. And don't get me started on vaccinations.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#263

Post by pdeuchler »

some-guy wrote: post #252
marknutter wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy, there was someone who just posted a rant against BLM in response to this s3r3nity's comment and it was deleted like two minutes ago. Does HN suffer from the same censorship that Facebook does?

Nothing wrong with that -- as HN readers we can flag / downvote comments and perform our own collective self-censorship (for better or worse).

except when HN readers flag comments they show up as dead and are in grey text, whereas this was entirely deleted

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#264

Post by protomyth »

pyoung wrote: post #236
protomyth wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of that might be that conservatives and moderates hear the liberal opinion expressed in so many out outlets that it is fairly easy to give an accurate answer where liberals hear what liberal outlets think conservatives think which is sensationalized to gain eyeballs. I was taught to be able to argue the other sides opinion as well because then you truly understand what you believe.

Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Tax cuts marketed as economic stimulus, attacks on regulations and consumer/environmental protections marketed as 'making government more efficient', racial oppression disguised as drug/crime laws, universal health ca…

Its nice to see throwit992 point proven in such close proximity to the comment. Your spin doesn't reflect the beliefs of any conservative I have met. We aren't twirling mustaches here.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#265

Post by dragonwriter »

542458 wrote: post #49
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is "conservative news" and "liberal news". Liberal news is things that happened, things that will happen, etc. Conservative news is a made up stories, things that never happened, etc. Example of trending "conservative news": Obama bans the phrase "Merry Christmas". E.g. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/barack-obama-bans-...

I think that's an overly broad and biased characterization. I find it hard to believe that an entire half of the voting spectrum is made up of liars and charlatans.

> I find it hard to believe that an entire half of the voting spectrum is made up of liars and charlatans.

The publishers of conservative news stories are not "an entire half of the voting spectrum", so that's not the issue in any case.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#266

Post by mc32 »

golemotron wrote: post #204
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…

I think it also helps to have someone "legitimize" what are relatively to mainstream news "outcaste" views. It also helps when you have a charismatic person personifying those ideas.

Palin, for example may have had similar opinions but was not charismatic. Trump on the other hand sounds like your regular blue collar worker --I've known black as well as white blue collar workers and they speak just like that. When they make a mistake, they don't try to explain it away like a Clinton or a Bush. Nah, they just come out and say, yeah, I was probably wrong and this is why and offer some plausible support for the argument. Also, I think lots of working class people have felt funny about politicians tiptoeing around issues rather than just being a bit "vulgar" about things and that appeals to some people. If you ever listen to how people who take buses to the poorer areas of town talk, just sit at one of those stops long enough you'll know what I mean. They are unfiltered and speak as they feel without any affected tiptoeing.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#267

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

The 2008 study did not find that "88% of journalists donate to the Democratic party."

It found that, of people who made a political donation and identified a journalism company as their employer, 88% donated to a Democratic candidate or cause.

It's not possible to take this study as evidence of an overall bias in journalism, because it is a very small, non-random sample of people. The total number of people included in the study is less than 1,500, and it was a self-selected group. In addition it includes non-journalist jobs like CFO and a "Saturday Night Live" producer.

About the only solid conclusion to draw from this study is that the vast majority of journalists do not contribute to political parties or candidates at all.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#268

Post by popmystack »

whatthesmack wrote: post #179
popmystack wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the specific case of conservative politics, why does it matter that it's so skewed? I have absolutely no issue with, in this specific case, conservative politics not receiving much attention. I would liken it to not giving "flat earthers", blatant racists, and charlatans air time (excuse the hyperbole, hopefully the point was understood). While I agree that ideological conformity is a problem, I think it's a sympt…

> "flat earthers", blatant racists, and charlatans air time (excuse the hyperbole, hopefully the point was understood). The point was understood, but differently than you intended. These terms seem to be used to reference the folks that would claim to hold the conservative viewpoint, but the terms themselves only further evidence the misunderstood viewpoint non-conservatives may have of conservatives, and that misund…

I don't think it's a case of me misunderstanding, I could have easily provided other examples of view points that are largely not covered or ignored because they do not hold merit. Not that this really adds negates what you said, but I used to be a conservative (and not in the vein of the caricature I was employing), it'd be hard for me to misunderstand a position I once held some years ago.

There comes a time where experience and evidence will just not go your way, no matter how many what-ifs and "if you would just listen"'s you throw at opposing parties. You cannot add credibility to your position based on unknowns and chance.

Making sure there is an artificial level playing ground between two sides is pointless. I don't believe this is a case of people stifling view points, but rather the view point in question just not holding any merit.

Equating that to censorship is silly. Furthermore utilizing questionable sources to further a point isn't going to help your view point either.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#269

Post by welanes »

I, and most of my friends, are liberal minded. After The Guardian established a policy of (ironically) closing comments on their Comment Is Free section when the article relates to refugees or Muslims, I decided to include sites like Fox, Breitbart etc. into my daily feed. (I found the reflex to stifle debate deplorable and wanted to step outside the echo chamber).

Discussions with friends have become more interesting for sure as I reveal their biases.

From defending real violence over threats of violence, (Trump rallies and protests) to ignoring crime statistics, to just being woefully ignorant of what position the other side actually holds, it's incredible to see just how steadfast the Left can be in their ignorance.

Re: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

#270

Post by pdeuchler »

pj_mukh wrote: post #221
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…

This "seems" like an American phenomenon. As a liberal, I can have a fully formed debate with a British Conservative, A Canadian conservative, a European conservative (sans latent Nazism), however the dominant American conservative seems to be operating on a completely different plain and set of assumptions. I find it extremely difficult to relate to and debate the American conservative. In general, if an american (c…

Wow, a non-falsifiable argument about how another side is a priori wrong. I'm sure this is a reasonable point to make.
Post reply on HN