[dave2000]

If by "extremist content" you mean religious fanatics beheading people, or calling people to arms, or giving tips on producing bombs or whatever, then you are entitled to treat this as "unpopular ideas" which "need defending in a free society" or whatever, but don't be surprised if sane, rational people take a somewhat different view and decide they don't want to spread hatred, nor leave themselves open to lawsuits for the honour of hosting this content for free. All companies like to talk about fostering freedom or whatever, but as organisations which exist to make profit it's partly because censorship costs them money, and also the more content they have, the more of a surface they have to make money from. They don't really give a shit about you or your freedom, and there's precious little internal conflict about whether to host this months crop of terrorist atrocities.

[Houshalter]

Parent comment didn't say they were ideas that "need defending in a free society", or anything about freedom. He just said that censoring them might have negative consequences.

I don't know if it's correct in this case. But I know that in general, people see censorship as validation of the ideas being censored, and also as a rallying flag for something to be angry about.

[cinquemb]

One mans this months crop of terrorist™ atrocities is another mans this months crop of metadata drone strikes :P

[exstudent2]

I'm not talking about videos of beheadings (although there's a case for keeping things like that around too to help educate people). I'm talking about suppression of everyday right wing viewpoints. Things like this: http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...

For context, I'm not right-wing myself but absolutely object to censoring content based on political viewpoints such as this.

[dave2000]

From reading that, the only criticism that seems sane and fair is that they should have chosen a different string to "trending"; "recommended" perhaps, or "curated". My expectations that i'm going to receive a much-needed education in some topic from occasionally clicking on the "trending" link on facebook aren't especially high; perhaps yours are a little misplaced if present?

Also, I note that that article states that other "curators" denied such a bias exists. Facebook have denied such activities. Ok, being sceptical, they would say that. But it could be bullshit spewed by an ex-exmployee So, where's the study? The data? How do we show whether or not there is a bias, assuming you care enough to investigate? It's just more conspiracy theories and "typing" isn't it.