There's no legal precedent here. Tech can go like Hollywood and push whatever political agenda they want.
That being said, this is the type of thing that makes 1984 look a lot less like fiction. How many 13-18 year olds, who don't watch TV, are instead experiencing intense indoctrination controlled by Facebook? No matter your political leanings you must find this troublesome.
I remember when I was 18 I went to college, started working, started paying taxes, and stopped watching TV. Suddenly I had space to question my political views, which I realized on the whole had been implanted by the media. Facebook could be even worse - how many people actually get away from their influence?
Where you seeing that? And if filtering a few news stories on a social networking site is 'intense', then what are those private companies writing specifically tilted views of history for school textbooks in Texas doing?
How often will that indoctrination be better than they'd get otherwise?
Not that I approve of Facebook manipulating users, I think we are at a point where we need to diffuse power wherever we can. We certainly shouldn't blithely hand it to businesses. That said, it's hard to not end up at least giving the above aspect of it some consideration.
Their use of contractors is subtle. I'm sure employees manipulated the feed. The research they did in 2012 with Cornell had Facebook directly manipulating feeds to illicit emotional outcomes and they measured how those emotions propagated out to the rest of the subject's network.
Again, the question is not if but, how much they manipulate. Calling it an "Algorithm" that is staffed by "Quality Editors" who can group tags and things together to make trending topics bigger is just a defense mechanism. Facebook can say or make anything they want to appear or disappear in your feed.
It's funny how the debate on this has skipped directly to whether it's OK for Facebook to do it not whether they actually did it. Also, the allegations are that a few curators suppressed news stories from conservative sites from appearing on the trending news feed. Even if this turns out to be true it's a far cry from the "Facebook is censoring news!!!" allegations that are being thrown around.
The FB post you linked to is a response to the general allegations, and not a response to the Senate's request. Thune's letter quotes part of tstocky's post:
> In a statement responding to the allegations, Facebook has claimed to have “rigorous guidelines in place for the review team” to prevent “the suppression of political perspectives” or the “prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another.”
With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine how can Facebook be held accountable for anything? I'm not defending Facebook's alleged actions, I'm asking how could those alleged actions be in violation of federal law?
Hilariously, this is what Thune had to say about the Fairness Doctrine when he sponsored an amendment to prevent the FCC from stepping in on talk radio;
> Our amendment would have helped preserve the vibrant marketplace of ideas we have today in our media. Our support for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech means that we must support the rights granted to even those with whom we disagree. Giving power to a few to regulate fairness in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.
So it's an Orwellian disaster for the fairness doctrine to extend to talk radio, but he's okay with the government threatening a private internet company to make sure there's enough conservative opinion being displayed? Nice scruples.
Facebook can do whatever it wants to. Maybe most people on facebook have liberal views and they're showing people what they are more likely to want to read?
I don't agree with Facebook's actions in intentionally creating bias, but bias is essentially a constitutionally protected right via free speech. I don't have to agree with them for them to have a right to do it.
You're not wrong. But many see Facebook as a communication medium, rather than a company. They would think it's like a pen which refuses to write conservative viewpoints, just because the manufacturer has a liberal bias. Obviously, that's absurd. But it seems that many fail to realize how scary it is that we have relied so much on a single company's platform for communication, when they have already admitted to manipulating us. Maybe this censorship debacle will be a nudge in the right direction, if publicized clearly enough.
> Maybe most people on facebook have liberal views and they're showing people what they are more likely to want to read?
Trending happens regardless of political view. If they're manually suppressing views which don't align with FB management then users should be made aware of this.
I think the complaint is that when conservative ideas "organically" trended, meaning were being actively discussed/traded/etc by many people, curators would substitute their favored stories as "trending", despite the fact they weren't or weren't to the same degree. The Senate letter suggests that by suppressing actually trending conservative news in favor of progressive news that was not trending and then calling it "trending" that something akin to false advertising fraud is in play.
In one sense, assuming this happened and is true, the Senate has a point. Having said that, even if the Senate does have a point, this doesn't rise to the level of being worth pursuing. In fact, I think as a society we're all too ready to try to invoke legal remedies for relative minor transgressions, including for claims of false advertising. Yes, Facebook should be able to do what ever they want on their service; including being a little fast and loose with the truth and still get away without legal sanction so long as no one was hurt as a result.
If they lied about what was trending or not or, shall we say, carefully defined what it means "to trend", I know about it now, I suffered no direct physical or financial harm, and can make the case Facebook isn't to be trusted in such matters. I'm not a conservative, but I am nearly wholly opposed to political progressivism and the political left's agenda. I can tell you I had already figured Facebook manipulated (manually or algorithmically) their news feed and trending news box to meet their own interests be that political or economic. Nonetheless, I think the First Amendment concerns are greater than the concerns of possible puffery about what is "trending" or not and that government force, or the threat thereof, is not the answer.
People's political views are not cookie-cutter copies. Maybe you think public policy should be guided primarily by what is just, and consequently your hope is that the censors' idea of justice is the same as yours. Or maybe you subscribe to the notion that politics ultimately is the competition of divergent private interests and shifting alliances, and in that case you should hope is that the censors have your best interest at heart (perhaps by virtue of being your employees). Even the former is exceedingly improbable if you go into the minute details of your personal politics. You are much more likely to be manipulated away from than reinforced in your current views.
This is incorrect: Facebook is not a media, but a distribution platform. A media, like, say, The New York Times, can have as much bias as it wants, but a platform that distributes media should treat all media equally, otherwise it becomes a media that promotes a certain viewpoint, and enters into competition with its own clients.
There's no specific law or regulation referenced in the complaint. This is just grandstanding. Facebook PR flaks will gladly reply with a generic corporate non-answer and that will be the end of it.
For those not aware, Senators send letters to companies on a pretty regular basis. It does not carry the weight of law, just the PR pressure of having a Senator publicly questioning you. Companies usually take it seriously and respond in some fashion.
There is nothing that the government can do to influence Facebook's news-ranking algorithm (even if it is a human editorial process), just like there is nothing it can do to influence Google's PageRank or CNN's coverage of trivial and inconsequential events. Sending a letter accusing Facebook of liberal bias is like accusing Fox News of conservative bias. It accomplishes nothing, since any organization can easily justify its actions as free speech.
This senator may slowly be realizing how dangerous mass privatization is. Facebook might look like a public gathering place, but it is not. It is a corporate and private space, and rights such as free speech do not apply in a private and corporate space. Too bad for senator Thune that a corporation is using its power against political views he likes. The sword of privatization and its erosion of public spaces where free speech is preserved cuts both ways.
It's not anti-immigration posts that cause an issue, it is posts that contain racism and incitement of violence. Those posts have real world consequences, and are of questionable value when it comes to civil discourse. Thus, Facebook doesn't create a chilling effect if they censor those things, which is why they are cooperative.
I find always surprising that people and now politicians expect Facebook to act like a public service and not like the private company it is.
Facebook answers to its interests as a company.
Since when are not newspapers curated, and leaning left or right? Did someone go ask Fox News to explain manipulation to the Senate? Facebook may make decisions that cost its credibility, but it's in its own right as a private company to select the content they provide, just as it can skew your timelines or suck every piece of data from your browsing habits and resell it to advertisers ( you accepted their terms after all)
Facebook is not a public service nor an NGO nor a bunch of nuns doing charity work.
How would this be different from the way Google's algorithm ranks news stories or for that matter how the New York Times editors choose their stories? Perhaps some transparency form FB on how they rank content would be useful. Might also be nice to have a setting in FB for this sort of filtering.
facit: two pages were opened on the same date, one inciting to violence against 'jews' (the page was called 'Stop Israelis' but the message seems clear), the other doing the same against 'palestinians'. After posting more and more - and stronger and stronger - messages to both pages the makers reported both pages to Facebook. Result? The page inciting to violence against 'palestinians' was closed the same day, with an explanation from Facebook that said page was 'found to be in violation of their community standards'. The other page, which was identical in most parts except for the fact that it was 'jews' which were targeted was not closed, with Facebook answering that 'it was not found to violate any of their standards'.
When this brew up a bit of a storm on the 'net Facebook eventually rescinded and closed the page, explaining it away as 'an error'.
What I suspect is that there is a large peer pressure inside the Facebook censor team to align to a certain - and probably narrow - spectrum of acceptable views, one which traditionally is called 'left-wing' or 'liberal' even though both names don't seem to fit the ideas being espoused. Living in Sweden I've seen the same concept at work in the traditional media, this has gotten so strong that the word for it in Swedish - åsiktskorridor (literally 'view corridor', roughly 'acceptable views') - has become a mainstream word. This has lead to an explosion in the number of 'alternative' media channels as well as a record low level of trust in the 'traditional' media.
In other words, Facebook would do well to study the Swedish situation and learn from the mistakes made here if they don't want to end up in the same situation: mistrusted, deemed unreliable and outdated.
Seems like every government agency from city/state to federal is using twitter and facebook to communicate to people. Facebook is monopoly in some areas. To block/censor groups and people on any grounds other than criminal for a personal agenda, is really causing a mix of issues.
story blocked "Access Denied: You don't have permission to access "serve-403-cf.www.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/5/thune-seeks-answers-from-facebook-on-political-manipulation-allegations" on this server."
Any alternatives to FB out there worth using? There are 6 mentioned in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10701871 and I've also heard of unseen.is as a messaging platform from Iceland.
It's amazing how far (so far unfounded) allegations by "unnamed sources" go these days. It's not like "former employees" ever have a desire to bad-mouth their former employer, especially if they were social conservatives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
We have become a nation that is willing to believe anything that agrees with our confirmation bias, including outlandish and far-reaching conspiracy theories.
Facebook has publicly stated they have done psychological A/B testing, so I suppose they opened themselves up to this line of accusation.
I'm confused. Are corporations only entitled to 2nd amendment protection when we're conflating money with speech or does it also count when it's actually speech?
[+] [-] zxcvvcxz|10 years ago|reply
That being said, this is the type of thing that makes 1984 look a lot less like fiction. How many 13-18 year olds, who don't watch TV, are instead experiencing intense indoctrination controlled by Facebook? No matter your political leanings you must find this troublesome.
I remember when I was 18 I went to college, started working, started paying taxes, and stopped watching TV. Suddenly I had space to question my political views, which I realized on the whole had been implanted by the media. Facebook could be even worse - how many people actually get away from their influence?
[+] [-] mmanfrin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|10 years ago|reply
Not that I approve of Facebook manipulating users, I think we are at a point where we need to diffuse power wherever we can. We certainly shouldn't blithely hand it to businesses. That said, it's hard to not end up at least giving the above aspect of it some consideration.
[+] [-] jessriedel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imaginenore|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|10 years ago|reply
https://www.facebook.com/tstocky/posts/10100853082337958?pnr...
TL;DR: We don't manipulate the feed and we're pretty sure none of our contractors have, and we've checked before, but we'll check again.
[+] [-] slackstation|10 years ago|reply
Again, the question is not if but, how much they manipulate. Calling it an "Algorithm" that is staffed by "Quality Editors" who can group tags and things together to make trending topics bigger is just a defense mechanism. Facebook can say or make anything they want to appear or disappear in your feed.
[+] [-] onewaystreet|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mryan|10 years ago|reply
> In a statement responding to the allegations, Facebook has claimed to have “rigorous guidelines in place for the review team” to prevent “the suppression of political perspectives” or the “prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another.”
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] taylodl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeyouse|10 years ago|reply
> Our amendment would have helped preserve the vibrant marketplace of ideas we have today in our media. Our support for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech means that we must support the rights granted to even those with whom we disagree. Giving power to a few to regulate fairness in the media is a recipe for an Orwellian disaster.
So it's an Orwellian disaster for the fairness doctrine to extend to talk radio, but he's okay with the government threatening a private internet company to make sure there's enough conservative opinion being displayed? Nice scruples.
[+] [-] legohead|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|10 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
[+] [-] billytetrud|10 years ago|reply
I don't agree with Facebook's actions in intentionally creating bias, but bias is essentially a constitutionally protected right via free speech. I don't have to agree with them for them to have a right to do it.
[+] [-] 0942v8653|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] H0n3sty|10 years ago|reply
Trending happens regardless of political view. If they're manually suppressing views which don't align with FB management then users should be made aware of this.
[+] [-] sbuttgereit|10 years ago|reply
In one sense, assuming this happened and is true, the Senate has a point. Having said that, even if the Senate does have a point, this doesn't rise to the level of being worth pursuing. In fact, I think as a society we're all too ready to try to invoke legal remedies for relative minor transgressions, including for claims of false advertising. Yes, Facebook should be able to do what ever they want on their service; including being a little fast and loose with the truth and still get away without legal sanction so long as no one was hurt as a result.
If they lied about what was trending or not or, shall we say, carefully defined what it means "to trend", I know about it now, I suffered no direct physical or financial harm, and can make the case Facebook isn't to be trusted in such matters. I'm not a conservative, but I am nearly wholly opposed to political progressivism and the political left's agenda. I can tell you I had already figured Facebook manipulated (manually or algorithmically) their news feed and trending news box to meet their own interests be that political or economic. Nonetheless, I think the First Amendment concerns are greater than the concerns of possible puffery about what is "trending" or not and that government force, or the threat thereof, is not the answer.
[+] [-] rdancer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparkzilla|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snorkel|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|10 years ago|reply
More examples in an earlier comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634332
[+] [-] r00fus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] primitivesuave|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_b_er|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] H0n3sty|10 years ago|reply
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-26/merkel-con...
[+] [-] latenightcoding|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielrhodes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexandrerond|10 years ago|reply
Facebook answers to its interests as a company.
Since when are not newspapers curated, and leaning left or right? Did someone go ask Fox News to explain manipulation to the Senate? Facebook may make decisions that cost its credibility, but it's in its own right as a private company to select the content they provide, just as it can skew your timelines or suck every piece of data from your browsing habits and resell it to advertisers ( you accepted their terms after all)
Facebook is not a public service nor an NGO nor a bunch of nuns doing charity work.
[+] [-] seomint|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yetanfou|10 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3KfQoFHEDs
facit: two pages were opened on the same date, one inciting to violence against 'jews' (the page was called 'Stop Israelis' but the message seems clear), the other doing the same against 'palestinians'. After posting more and more - and stronger and stronger - messages to both pages the makers reported both pages to Facebook. Result? The page inciting to violence against 'palestinians' was closed the same day, with an explanation from Facebook that said page was 'found to be in violation of their community standards'. The other page, which was identical in most parts except for the fact that it was 'jews' which were targeted was not closed, with Facebook answering that 'it was not found to violate any of their standards'.
When this brew up a bit of a storm on the 'net Facebook eventually rescinded and closed the page, explaining it away as 'an error'.
What I suspect is that there is a large peer pressure inside the Facebook censor team to align to a certain - and probably narrow - spectrum of acceptable views, one which traditionally is called 'left-wing' or 'liberal' even though both names don't seem to fit the ideas being espoused. Living in Sweden I've seen the same concept at work in the traditional media, this has gotten so strong that the word for it in Swedish - åsiktskorridor (literally 'view corridor', roughly 'acceptable views') - has become a mainstream word. This has lead to an explosion in the number of 'alternative' media channels as well as a record low level of trust in the 'traditional' media.
In other words, Facebook would do well to study the Swedish situation and learn from the mistakes made here if they don't want to end up in the same situation: mistrusted, deemed unreliable and outdated.
[+] [-] guelo|10 years ago|reply
"Congress shall make no law"
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IronWolve|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianwaj|10 years ago|reply
Any alternatives to FB out there worth using? There are 6 mentioned in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10701871 and I've also heard of unseen.is as a messaging platform from Iceland.
[+] [-] thephyber|10 years ago|reply
We have become a nation that is willing to believe anything that agrees with our confirmation bias, including outlandish and far-reaching conspiracy theories.
Facebook has publicly stated they have done psychological A/B testing, so I suppose they opened themselves up to this line of accusation.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spinlock|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IIAOPSW|10 years ago|reply
Corporations are entitled to keep and bear arms?!
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wewinintheend|10 years ago|reply