Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

>For your statement to be valid, you'd have to prove that there is a considerable amount of information missing and is only available via conservative media.

No, information may have been made available by biased media, but it may have been presented in such a way to adjust the perceived significance of it.

Take the email scandal for example. Every news outlet provided the information, but there are vastly different conclusions about the importance of it that a reader will be led to draw based on how the information was presented.

Even the headline you were upset about was a logical conclusion given a viewpoint based on the information available about the recent shooting of the police officers.

Information: Two policeman killed by a man who was in the country illegally

Conservative news interpretation: Illegal immigrant a result of poor border control policies by current administration. Therefore, "Obama lets immigrants across border to kill white people."

Liberal news interpretation: Immigration is a touchy subject right now, exclude anything related to it. Therefore, "Two policeman were killed by a person who happened to be a human."

>so few people would catch on that it would not hurt the bottom line.

People already know about the filter bubble, but they don't actually care. Most people aren't going to Facebook for an unbiased stream of news and they don't like to feel uncomfortable (i.e. be barraged by things that challenge their core beliefs).

> 10 to 1 one you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/

What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war?

Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.

Not really. The right in the US has gone through several compaction cycles that drummed the RINOs, moderate conservatives, blue-dog Democrats, etc out of office and the party. Republicans are far, far away from being a "big tent" party. It's ideological purity or get purged in the primaries.

By virtue of the two-party system in the US there is only one place left for rational thinking people to end up. This election cycle is producing an even stronger compaction cycle than the last three combined. As the base gets ever more rabid and detached from reality more people flee. (Some on the Left are pissed that the Dems have been moderating too much)

I can't predict the future but it is possible we are looking at a major fracture of the GOP and political re-alignment. It has happened 2-3 times in the past. If I had to guess the Rs will fracture into two or more parties, the Ds will run the table for a decade or two, then things will reset as a new party rises to replace the GOP and peels off D voters.

If Donald Trump keeps claiming he lost due to fraud/the media/some other boogeyman I don't see how the Republicans can keep it together. If nothing else he showed the wanna-be hucksters how to really appeal to the hardcore Republican base. Many astute eyes have been watching and will be ready to replicate his efforts at the local and national level. The Right-wing echo chamber has taught the base that all media are liars, you can't trust government, etc. There is no authority left who can tell them what is a false conspiracy theory and what is truth. Anyone who doesn't buy the conspiracies is branded a traitor and the compaction cycle marches ever onward.

Compaction Cycles are where a group turns inward looking for people to blame. Sometimes there is an obvious cause, sometimes it's just general discontent. People point fingers and anyone who isn't quick enough to jump on the group-think train is purged. Moderate or un-committed members are driven out, (see Tea Party candidates primary-ing a bunch of Rs out). If the movement experiences a failure this can manifest as the blame-game too - see McCain/Romney. When they clinched the nomination various places like r/pol and Freep went on huge purges of anyone not backing them. When they lost the group-think proclaimed it was because they weren't true conservatives. Like fascism, communism, and other -isms conservativism cannot fail, it can only be failed. Compromise is a moral failing. If the leaders just /conservatived even harder/ they would finally win.

When Trump inevitably loses (remember: he hasn't been forecasted to win once since he started running and demographic trends make it almost impossible for Republicans to win the presidency anymore) there will be another massive purge and a huge wave of angry people looking to blame someone. A certain segment of the R base won't believe he lost. They will claim the election was stolen.

This raises the really interesting point that news doesn't have a post mortem process. It would be a very interesting experiment to, say, revisit a sampling of top stories at some interval (say 3-6 months) and compare the reported facts (and omissions) with the actual reality.

From such elements as "did names and places get accurately reported?" to "was the underlying narrative correct?". Quotes and attributions might be a particular element. Predictions (particularly in financial reporting) as well.

This needn't be every article, but some weighted sample based on a story's placement, impact, subsequent references, etc.