Facebook regularly suppressed conservative new

So sayeth Gizmodo.

What do you think about this?

Personally, I don’t have a problem with sites having biases, but only as long as they’re open and honest about it. Facebook’s trending news is supposed to be user driven so suppressing stories isn’t cricket in my book.

For a business dependent on users of all political stripes, yeah, it’s a problem. Not very good advertising.

(FTR, I’ve never even seen the ‘trending news’ section. I have Facebook because I need it to post conveniently on certain websites, and occasionally to communicate with family members and friends.)

Eh, I don’t know:

I don’t have a problem with the “curators” selecting more reputable news sources. But then again, if they’re telling everyone this trending news feed is user driven, that doesn’t sit well with me.

But also, if you’re getting your news from FB, that’s kind of a problem with in itself.

So, I don’t know…

“organically trending” ?

Something something, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Two anonymous, conservative, former Facebook news curators felt that news on conservative topics was not being sufficiently promoted. That may be true, and I find it plausible enough, but it’s a really long way from there to “Facebook suppressed conservative news.”

So, it sounds like they were doing the exact opposite of Yahoo, and eschewing click bait articles. Seems like a reasonable policy, considering what a trash heap the Yahoo front page is most days.

Avoiding biased sources is fine, as long as they avoid the ones that are biased either direction.

I do note that I’ve seen stuff from both sides all the time–lots of stuff about the Republican primaries, and I even have something from Phil Robertson about trans issues that I’ve avoided reading–assuming it would show up here at some point.

Looking just now on the politics tab, I have 8 things that have to do with the election, and I’d count three of them as being right wing-ish and 3 left wing-ish (in that they are criticizing the right wing). They are nearly all anti-Trump, though–only the Robertson thing and the thing about this very topic are not.

Yeah, they’re covering a story about their own bias.

The Trending stories are often the most ridiculous, vapid, useless pieces of “news” headlines I’ll read in a day (and I read Buzzfeed). I am not going to lose any sleep over the idea that when they do have a serious news piece in there, it may not actually be trending and/or it may be at the expense of leaving out a story from the right.

Having a bias over what you highlight as “trending” is not the same as having a biased newsfeed, which is user-driven. I tell Facebook what I want to see and what I don’t want to see, and it’s been doing a pretty good job.

I don’t know what the “trending news section” even is. I just occasionally see “Trending: Prince”, for example, when my friends posted stuff about his death last month. And there is certainly no shortage of conservative “news” in my feed.

I must’ve have fallen through their algorithmic cracks, because I don’t even have a “Trending” section on my Facebook page. Maybe I turned it off or didn’t turn it on. Guess I’m not missing anything. :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, I wouldn’t trust anything that appears on Breitbart, for sure. So I’d applaud a decision not to encourage them.

To me, the key would be what they do with equally biased and erroneous left wing sources. I’m thinking here of something like US Uncut, which is as untrustworthy as any conservative site. If these articles are accepted uncritically they’re making a mistake.

See, to be a really informed citizen you’ve got to read Gizmodo.

And tweet.

It would be nice if Facebook news stories were balanced (and they may be for all I know.) But if they’re not, FB is under no legal obligation to be balanced. Anyone who depends on FB for news is not that wise anyway IMO.

I would expect Facebook’s actual user demographic to be to the left of the kinds of people who do NOT use Facebook,. Nobody ever went broke preaching to the choir.

If you ever figure out how you turned it off, I’ll pay you fifty bucks to teach me.

Indeed, but only as long as they’re open and honest about it.

That this “story” is being touted by FoxNews and Republicans who regularly appear on FoxNews is the height of a double-standard.

Not treating right wing propaganda sites as legitimate news sources seems like a perfectly acceptable policy.

“Insufficiently promoted”? According to whom?