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

Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

washingtontimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 231 posts

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#151

Post by harryjo »

bpodgursky wrote: post #43
adamnemecek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that he went to the meeting suggests that he had some questions about bias in media.

Facebook invited a group of who they considered "leading conservatives" to Facebook to discuss this personally after the allegations came out. Glen was on that list. I don't think many people would have turned down that invitation, whether or not you had concerns beforehand.

That meeting featured the leading right-wing clowns. The sad thing is that they are the most popular "conservative" pundits.

Facebook could do better to engage with less shrill demagogues on all side of political spectra, instead of promoting clowns.

(Note: a clown is a smart person who plays for a dumb audience.)

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#152

Post by [deleted] »

jerf wrote: post #123
howlingfantods wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality has a notorious liberal bias. Look at climate change, which went from scientific position to liberal position.

Just so you know, I read "Reality has a $MY_POSITION bias" as "I've completely epistemically closed myself by reading only what I agree with". Perhaps not something you really want to advertise quite so loudly.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#153

Post by redthrowaway »

howlingfantods wrote: post #104
redthrowaway wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets tend to believe themselves to be unbiased. Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so…

Reality has a notorious liberal bias. Look at climate change, which went from scientific position to liberal position.

Parroting lines from the Daily Show/Colbert Report only makes you seem credible to other young lefties. You're not going to win any converts from the other side; we'll tend to roll our eyes and dismiss the speaker.

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#154

Post by ChrisArgyle »

chimeracoder wrote: post #148
ChrisArgyle wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this is more likely due to the actual outcome being too complex for a headline. "Facebook denies systematic bias but admits their current process allows bad actors to apply bias and takes remediating steps" Doesn't work. Although WSJ came kinda close.

> "Facebook denies systematic bias but admits their current process allows bad actors to apply bias and takes remediating steps" If their system allows bad actors to apply bias, that's literally a systematic bias. Unless they're claiming all of their 'bad actors' are symmetrically distributed along every relevant axis[0], that's the same thing as saying that there is a systematic bias. There is no reason to believe t…

I took "systematic bias" to have similar meaning to "systematic error" meaning that there is a constant shift on every data point. Admitting the possibility of bias is very different than admitting bias in every single trending content decision.

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#155

Post by daveguy »

bpodgursky wrote: post #102
mmanfrin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies have found that state run media in democratic nations are the least biased. NPR, BBC.

If you genuinely think NPR is the least biased news source available in the US, you have more serious problems.

Well, if judged by the criteria of "which listeners are the most accurately informed" then, yes, npr is the least biased news source.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes...

Of course, reality has always had a liberal bias.

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#156

Post by CM30 »

sgeisenh wrote: post #81
redthrowaway wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My anecdata suggests conservative outlets tend to acknowledge their bias, as a counterweight to liberal bias in the "mainstream" media, whereas liberal outlets tend to believe themselves to be unbiased. Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so…

From the perspective of an American, the American MSM has a liberal bias. From the perspective of a citizen from most other first-world countries, the American MSM has a hardcore conservative bias.

From the perspective of this non American, the America mainstream media seems to have more of a 'pro corporation/pro establishment' bias than anything else. Why else would it be so eager to criticise both Trump and Sanders?

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#157

Post by JupiterMoon »

protomyth wrote: post #146
bpodgursky wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the CSMonitor to be a good source for review articles (not breaking news, but breaking news is rarely that informative IMO): http://www.csmonitor.com/ I read the Economist and while I won't call it unbiased, it's honest and usually presents both sides. For day-of news it's tougher but direct Reuters pieces usually have minimal interpretation and are pretty good.

but the Reuters' headline writer has a hate on for Israel. "Palestinian Dies in Ramming Attack" was one such title.

Way to start a flame war.

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#158

Post by mason240 »

gnaritas wrote: post #110
nametakenobv wrote: post #50

You look confused. Probably because people want to call facebook "social media" and Fox News is also called "media". Fox News produces editorial content. They are entitled to their opinion thanks to the first Amendment. Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias in the very same way that your TV set is not allowed to receive only conservative news channe…

> Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias That's simply not true; they're allowed to do anything they want.

Literally no one is suggesting otherwise.

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#159

Post by soundwave106 »

redthrowaway wrote: post #90
hackuser wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pervasive liberal bias in the MSM The biggest cable news channel, the most popular newspaper (I think WSJ leads; EDIT: and certainly it dominates the business world), and almost all talk radio are highly conservative. They try to paint themselves as underdogs, but it's a little silly.

Yes, the big ones are conservative, because every other one is liberal. Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media. If you're a liberal and you want to watch news that doesn't offend you, you can choose from any of the major networks save Fox. If you're a conservative and want the same, you're stuck with Fox.

Personally, I will say that the notion of news "offending" due to editorial stance strikes me as an awful attitude to have. I am only "offended" by poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately). I may disagree with a well thought out opinion, but a well thought out opinion being actually offensive? What an awful thing to think!

At any rate, even back in the old days of media there certainly were many choices for conservative news. Jim Lehrer's PBS Newshour on TV, many regional newspapers, and business papers for instance. Populism had a few non-gossip national tabloids like the New York Post; talk radio too.

It is true that a lot of media was dominated by a modest-left stance (talk radio being the exception), but I don't find bias a problem per se (we all are biased after all). I lean modest liberal personally, but back when I actually watched TV news I thought the PBS Newshour was the best of the lot, as it seemed to avoid some of the scare story traps the "big three" occasionally worked themselves up over.

Of course, these days, thanks to the web, you have every opportunity to silo yourself in one bias you are not "offended by" if you want.

Re: Facebook admits rogue employees may have shown bias against conservatives

#160

Post by ta_donk_gt »

ChrisArgyle wrote: post #154
chimeracoder wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Facebook denies systematic bias but admits their current process allows bad actors to apply bias and takes remediating steps" If their system allows bad actors to apply bias, that's literally a systematic bias. Unless they're claiming all of their 'bad actors' are symmetrically distributed along every relevant axis[0], that's the same thing as saying that there is a systematic bias. There is no reason to believe t…

I took "systematic bias" to have similar meaning to "systematic error" meaning that there is a constant shift on every data point. Admitting the possibility of bias is very different than admitting bias in every single trending content decision.

I think you are confusing "systemic" and "systematic". When someone indicates a problem is systemic, they mean it is rooted in the core of the system, and is thus deeply engrained in the system and present system-wide (and generally therefore requires a change that will affect everything from top to bottom in order to fix).

Edit: though I see you've used systematic from the start, so maybe that was your intention.

Post reply on HN