# Why is it Congress' Business Whether Facebook Discriminates? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 13, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716 "2016-05-13T21:29:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/1 "2016-05-13T21:29:41Z")
Apparently Republicans in Congress want some answers from Facebook regarding allegations that they discriminate against conservative points of view. I don’t understand what basis they have to mix in. Why can’t a private company like Facebook adopt any sort of policy they want about liberals vs conservative perspectives? What standing does Congress have to get involved? > **[Facebook scrambles to contain fallout](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/279835-facebook-scrambles-to-contain-fallout/)** > > Allegations of bias are a threat to the company. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/2 "2016-05-13T21:41:33Z")
This must be an example of the smaller government they keep yammering about. Maybe they’ll write some regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/3 "2016-05-13T22:38:09Z")
I was also curious why Congress has a role to play in this. Facebook is a private media company, and I would think they’d be free to present any content they like. Maybe Congress is going for some deceptive advertising angle? If you claim to offer a balanced and fair representation of the news, but you subtly to introduce a partisan bias, that’s clearly deceptive, right? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/4 "2016-05-13T22:48:16Z")
It is kind of fascinating. After getting rid years ago of the so-called “fairness doctrine” in regulated broadcast media, how come they now want to pressure chanels in the web and social media into it. **Bayard** , I don’t think Facebook advertises itself as a “fair and balanced” news organization. They are not the content hosts anyway. Possible lines of intent or thinking: 1. Most conspiratorial: The Congressmen in question are making a Big Deal of it as part of a general thrust to hype up how Facebook/Google/Apple/etc. are un-American liberal leftist hipster-values nerd outfits, so as to rile up the base against those boogiemen for when they want to go after them on matters of privacy/surveillance, net neutrality, taxation, etc. See also: encryption. 2. Someone has noticed that conservatives are using Facebook/Google/etc. but have not been dominating the feeds in the same manner as, for instance, AM radio, and that RightWing sites are popular in the blogosphere but nowhere even in sight of the same ballpark as Facebook, and this is a strategy to rile up the base and whip up vocal demand for more conservative content (or for creating a ConservaBook). 3. A whole buncha Congressmen (and a whole buncha people in general) really really really can’t get their minds around the idea of these outfits being unregulated, private status be damned. Or being generous to their intelligence, they feel that the way people use social media it has become de-facto public utilities. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/5 "2016-05-13T23:22:27Z")
Two problems with #3. 1. Social media’s international nature. It’s hard to define a service as a public utility in the US when it covers the world. Bets on how long it would take those social media companies to move to other countries (and take their jobs with them) the second Congress passes legislation attempting to regulate it? 2. The First Amendment, on two counts: freedoms of speech and the press. (Granted, the latter is quite possibly a reach, but it could be argued, anyway.) It’d be a nice talking point against Republicans if they tried, though. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/6 "2016-05-13T23:27:14Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > 1. Social media’s international nature. It’s hard to define a service as a public utility in the US when it covers the world. Bets on how long it would take those social media companies to move to other countries (and take their jobs with them) the second Congress passes legislation attempting to regulate it? We’ll build a beautiful HYOOOOGE tremendous firewall.😛 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/7 "2016-05-13T23:34:47Z")
And make ICANN pay for it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/8 "2016-05-13T23:53:07Z")
JRDelirious, yeah, I was just trying to make a little joke about “fair and balanced”. I know they don’t advertise that way. But if Congress wants to start investigating media companies for pushing an agenda, I can think of a few better ones to start with… ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/9 "2016-05-14T01:11:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Apparently Republicans in Congress want some answers from Facebook regarding allegations that they discriminate against conservative points of view. I don’t understand what basis they have to mix in. Why can’t a private company like Facebook adopt any sort of policy they want about liberals vs conservative perspectives? What standing does Congress have to get involved? > > [http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279835-facebook-scrambles-to-contain-fallout](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279835-facebook-scrambles-to-contain-fallout) Why can’t bakers bake what cakes they wish? ---
**Author:** ![Grestarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grestarian/32/3227_2.png) [@Grestarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grestarian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/10 "2016-05-14T07:44:28Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > It is kind of fascinating. After getting rid years ago of the so-called “fairness doctrine” in regulated broadcast media, how come they now want to pressure chanels in the web and social media into it. > > **Bayard** , I don’t think Facebook advertises itself as a “fair and balanced” news organization. They are not the content hosts anyway. > > Possible lines of intent or thinking: > > 1. Most conspiratorial: The Congressmen in question are making a Big Deal of it as part of a general thrust to hype up how Facebook/Google/Apple/etc. are un-American liberal leftist hipster-values nerd outfits, so as to rile up the base against those boogiemen for when they want to go after them on matters of privacy/surveillance, net neutrality, taxation, etc. See also: encryption. > > 2. Someone has noticed that conservatives are using Facebook/Google/etc. but have not been dominating the feeds in the same manner as, for instance, AM radio, and that RightWing sites are popular in the blogosphere but nowhere even in sight of the same ballpark as Facebook, and this is a strategy to rile up the base and whip up vocal demand for more conservative content (or for creating a ConservaBook). > > 3. A whole buncha Congressmen (and a whole buncha people in general) really really really can’t get their minds around the idea of these outfits being unregulated, private status be damned. Or being generous to their intelligence, they feel that the way people use social media it has become de-facto public utilities. I was going to respond with my own list of quips, but JRdelirious has already phrased most of my points well enough. I’ll just add one more… 1. The Republican party vowed long ago to stop cooperating with Democratic Presidents (q.v. The Clinton Years) and this is just another distraction by which they can avoid debating or voting on substantial issues, lest they make a mistake and actually pass a law or approve a nomination\* that might unintentionally benefit Democrats. –G! \*After all, the demigod Reagan got the (then) conservative Scalia into the Supreme Court and, years later, he seemed so horribly liberal to the devolving Right Wing! Can’t afford to make that mistake again! ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/11 "2016-05-14T12:24:05Z")
In light of the article at [vox.com](http://vox.com) who cares what people try to do? [Facebook is going to get more politically biased, not less](http://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11661156/facebook-political-bias): > [@](#): > > Behind the panic over echo chambers are three simple observations. First, people like news that confirms the opinions they already hold. Second, the internet makes it easier for people to find news that confirms the opinions they already hold. Third, the algorithms running in the background of Google’s search engine and Facebook’s News Feed are constantly trying to serve users content — which includes news — they will like, and that will mean serving them news they already agree with. And it concludes: > [@](#): > > Like the newspapers before it, Facebook does not want to be known as politically biased. “We believe the world is better when people from different backgrounds and with different ideas all have the power to share their thoughts and experiences,” Zuckerberg wrote. Facebook, after all, wants to be a utility used by everyone. A perception of bias is bad for business. > > But its users very much want to be known as politically biased. People like and share articles that align with their identities. The stories we push to our friends make statements about who we are: They show that we care about LGBTQ rights, or believe in the Second Amendment, or think Donald Trump a fool, or believe Hillary Clinton a liar. Facebook’s algorithm uses those shares and likes to build a rough model of each user’s identity — political as well as nonpolitical — and surface yet more stories that align with it. > > The bad press Facebook has received for political bias in recent days is likely to push it away from human curation and toward yet more algorithmic curation. The irony is that will make Facebook more of an echo chamber, not less of one. Facebook’s human curators are under pressure to present both sides, but its algorithmic curators are not. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/12 "2016-05-14T12:43:38Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why can’t bakers bake what cakes they wish? IANAL but my understanding is that bakers are free to discriminate against liberals if they want; they are only not allowed to discriminate against a “protected class.” Political beliefs are not, to my understanding, a protected class under Federal Law. That was, as I understand it, the great significance of the Supreme Court Ruling in Windsor: [it made sexual orientation a full-fledged protected class](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19329662). Further even protected class does not apply if the class is intrinsic to the nature of the job. The Catholic church is not obligated to hire females as priests, a “Gentleman’s Club” is not obligated to hire male strippers. Bottom line though - a conservative newspaper is not obligated to hire a liberal. The NAACP is not obligated to give equal time to representatives of the KKK at their meetings. Fox is not required to give liberal perspectives a platform. MSNBC is does not have to give TP representatives equal time. And a baker cannot discriminate on the basis of race or any other protected class. Mind you it the allegation is a PR issue of significance for FB as part of their branding is being a neutral conduit of content within broad bounds. Staff exerting editorial control _would be of no legitimate state concern_ even if true (and it has been strongly denied) but it would hurt the brand and does play into a conservative mythology that media (including even social media platforms) is biased to liberal perspectives. Hence conservative Congresscritters bringing it up plays well to their base, even if they actually cannot do anything about it, even if it was actually true. (And for the reasons others have hypothesized in this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/13 "2016-05-14T15:34:09Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why can’t bakers bake what cakes they wish? Because discrimination against people is different than discrimination against stories? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/14 "2016-05-14T15:48:02Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > That was, as I understand it, the great significance of the Supreme Court Ruling in Windsor: [it made sexual orientation a full-fledged protected class](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19329662). Uh. No. Not it didn’t. And that is a point of criticism of the Windsor decision by some analysts. Justice Kennedy wrote in flowery prose about dignity of a marriage but did not write that sexual orientation is a protected class. In doing so the Court used a new analysis that bypassed long held methods of evaluating discrimination claims. From Boston University Law Review ([pdf link](http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2014/05/ARAIZA.pdf)): AFTER THE TIERS: WINDSOR, CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO ENFORCE EQUAL PROTECTION, AND THE CHALLENGE OF POINTILLIST CONSTITUTIONALISM WILLIAM D. ARAIZA∗ > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court’s June 2013 opinion in United States v. Windsor is remarkable for its bypassing of standard equal protection doctrine. In striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional discrimination against gays and lesbians, Windsor failed to broach the question whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect class; indeed, it failed even to perform the “fit” analysis that doctrine demands. Instead, the Court examined the statute and accompanying legislative materials and concluded that section 3 violated the Equal Protection Clause’s core command that government action not be based on animus against a disfavored group. > … > > Windsor, by abjuring suspect class and even “fit” analysis, undermines the Court’s approach to the enforcement power. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/15 "2016-05-14T16:05:51Z")
Here’s a quote from the article: > [@](#): > > Ted Cruz (R-Texas), in a post on Medium on Thursday. “Online content sharing was to be the apex of free speech.” > > “Online would be where our long-held, silent majority opinions would finally have an outlet! … or, so we thought.” So, Facebook = “online”, huh? I’d say if conservatives don’t feel comfortable on Facebook, they should go somewhere else. And how is Congress going to get Facebook to humor the delusion that conservatives are the “silent majority” opinion? More articles along the lines of “New evidence proves Earth really is 6000 years old!”? “A scientist explains the mechanics of the Ascension”? “Why destroying Social Security and Medicare is actually good for you”? These would get ripped to shreds in the comments section, so I am not sure how that would help. When Congressional Republicans are finished with this exercise in limiting free speech, I just hope Facebook includes something in their header along the lines of, “\*Now with 50% more bullshit!” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/16 "2016-05-14T17:27:13Z")
Again, happily NAL, and I dropped in the wrong link. But there does seem to be some debate among those who are about that. [The link I meant to drop.](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-declares-gays-a-protected-class/) [Another.](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/29/1397756/-Supreme-Court-LBGTQ-is-a-Protected-Class) That uses Obergefell as further support that LGBTQ’s status as a protected class is clearly implied in the rulings. I appreciate that the author of the BU article you cite apparently has, if I could understand it, or keep my eyes open for three seconds of reading it, a different interpretation. Meanwhile from the second article I linked to: > [@](#): > > Justice Anthony Kennedy gave two rationales for his decision in Obergefell: (1) that marriage was a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples and (2) to deny same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. … \ … The Court’s analysis has gone from dismissing summarily the claim for same-sex marriage to finding that laws banning same-sex marriage violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause. This history plus analysis of the Court’s decision in Obergefell leads one to believe that the Court has given the LBGTQ community the same protections that it gives racial and religious minorities. … A hijack but one that **octopus** ’s point hinges upon: is it legal in a state that has no state-specific non-discrimination laws that include LGBTQ status as a protected class for a baker to discriminate on the basis of LGBTQ status? It may be, depending on whose analysis we accept. If so then in those states bakers _can_ bake the cakes they want and refuse to do so for on the basis of LGBTQ status or political beliefs. So more to be done. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/17 "2016-05-14T18:12:25Z")
Windsor pre-dated Obergefell. **DSeid** ,you cited Windsor as establishing protected class. It clearly did not. And neither did Obergefell. And the reasoning in Obergefell again followed the rabbit hole that Windsor went down. Ginsburg is [on the record](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit) as essentially agreeing with the result from Roe v Wade but disagreeing with the reasoning. I wonder if the same might be said of Windsor and Obergefell in due time, though curiously for the opposite reasoning - that Windsor and Obergefell did not go far enough. And failing a clear statement of protected class certain issues remain unsettled. Several states [still do not afford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States#State_law) homosexuals protection against workplace discrimination. Several states [still do not protect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Housing) LGBT persons from discrimination in housing as well. Thus it is still legal in many states for a baker to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no federal law directly on point and no case history in the federal courts on point. Those cases which have successfully challenged such discrimination have done so on the basis of state laws and/or regulations. And thus to Facebook… Presume \*arguendo \*they are discriminating based on political viewpoint. So what? Congressional Republicans can complain, but they don;t have a legal leg to stand on. That is perfectly legal expect in a few very narrow instances (_e.g._ certain government employees enjoy such protection; advocacy of membership in a union is also protected). ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/18 "2016-05-15T01:13:10Z")
It probably is not within the bounds of Congress to regulate the censorship of political information on a privately-owned social media outlet like Facebook. But, if it is true that Facebook does this, I hope Congress and everyone else raises hell about this. The more bad publicity on a matter like this, the less likely Facebook and others engage in this sort of undemocratic behavior. This issue affects liberals too, so please don’t get all tribal and stoopid. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/19 "2016-05-15T01:16:20Z")
What do you mean by “raise hell?” If a bunch of Congressmen want to talk about it on the chamber floor…let 'em. That’s free speech. Liberals certainly gripe about Fox News. We just don’t try to get laws passed against them. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716/20 "2016-05-15T02:17:47Z")
I was under the impression that all of the content on Facebook is put there by users, not by Facebook itself. If it’s not “conservative” perhaps that is because most conservatives are watching Fox instead of posting on Facebook? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-congress-business-whether-facebook-discriminates/754716.md?page=2)