Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2016

Facebook Suppressing Conservative Stories

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:36 am



Surprise, surprise! Gizmodo:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

. . . .

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

We’ve seen similar things with Twitter and its ridiculous, pro-“social justice” “safety” commissions.

Issues like these raise an interesting question. It’s natural and appropriate, I think, to take note that a business like Facebook is trying to foist its leftist opinions on you. If you’re not a leftist — and maybe even if you are! — you might find this attempt to suppress certain political viewpoints an illiberal tendency.

But, of course, a private business has every right to promote particular viewpoints. And the natural response of a free marketeer to something like this is to encourage people to start their own competition.

One might whine that Facebook is a monopoly. To the extent that your complaint is that market forces have created a natural monopoly, I have no sympathy for your position. “Monopolies” are never as powerful in the long term as people perceive them to be. Competition always wins out in the end, if someone has a better product or service.

Here’s where it gets a little more difficult. What about the fact that Facebook certainly has several government-issued patents that make it difficult to compete with them? Is there anything of concern about the fact that a leftist government hands out patents to a leftist company — patents that have the effect of impeding conservatives’ ability to compete?

I ask the question to open a discussion. I can’t see this being a First Amendment violation, exactly — and there are slippery slope concerns about taking action to address it. (Am I to be deprived of copyright protection when I run a site that spouts free market and conservative ideas?)

But isn’t it worth discussing? When government protection of a business makes it difficult for competitors to spread ideas with which the government disagrees, something seems wrong.

UPDATE: My guess is that the official answer is: there’s no problem if government hands out the patents without regard to the company’s political viewpoint.

The next question is: do you believe that’s what they do?

111 Responses to “Facebook Suppressing Conservative Stories”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. Greetings:

    My mother had a little ditty that see used to sing to me when an appropriate situation arose. It went:

    Git along without you,
    Before I met you,
    Gonna get along without you now.

    Alternatively, for those California types: No Facebook, no Twitter, no Problem.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  3. I check FB from time to time to see if any of my friends’ kids or grandkids got into or oiut of college or prison.
    I’ll comment from time to time.
    Does this make Zuck any money?

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  4. UPDATE: My guess is that the official answer is: there’s no problem if government hands out the patents without regard to the company’s political viewpoint.

    The next question is: do you believe that’s what they do?

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  5. You can’t patent the social media concept. You could certainly legally build something that is Facebook-like. You can build something that lets people post things about themselves, comment on what other people posted, and deliver targeted ads. That has been going on for a very long time.

    So I don’t see that Facebook has been granted any kind of monopoly that stifles speech in any meaningful way. Facebook is more like a newspaper or a magazine or a cable station: yeah, start your own, but you have no way to make people pay attention to it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  6. I have the unfortunate luck to be on the extreme forefront of the Millenials generation, in that I’m technically a part of it, but the worst aspects of the Millenials are only shared by those younger than me.

    Unfortunately, it is not an option for someone my age to live without Facebook. All social events and most clubs are organized on Facebook. If I’m not on Facebook, I’ll never learn about birthday parties, open houses, house warmings, etc. The Millienal’s social calendar requires the stupid website. Alas…

    Burnside (8fa39f)

  7. This is the problem with Media-ocracy, Patterico.

    Groupthink is always, always dangerous.

    But most people do not mind if they agree with the groupthink.

    A cautionary tale for all.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  8. Medicines are more useful than Facebook and if patents can restrain competition for those ….

    The government did not prevent you from thinking of it first.

    Tough cookies, Johnny-come-lately. You should have picked parents who had kids as smart as me.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. @Patterico:The next question is: do you believe that’s what they do?

    Yeah. How did Zuckeberg identify himself as a sekrit Leftist in his application, and who the hell knew or cared who he was or what Facebook was?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  10. In fact there are dozens of other social media platforms like Facebook. It’s just that not very many people use them. The government did not grant Facebook its market share, and Facebook’s market share is the only reason that “censoring” its feeds makes any difference, because so many people spend so much time there. It has nothing to do with any patents Facebook holds because those patents are very specific, they’re not patents on being a social media platform Facebook. That would be like an author copywriting the novel format, or Disney copyrighting the medium of animation.

    So no, I don’t see how Facebook has anything like a government-granted license to restrict anyone’s speech. Start your own thing, see if you can get people to use it. Or wait until everyone gets bored of Facebook. Or figure out a way to reach the surly curmudgeons who don;t use it–but bear in mind they are not joiners.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  11. “yeah, start your own, but you conservatives have no way to make people pay attention to it.

    Gabriel Hanna” (64d4e1) — 5/9/2016 @ 8:02 am

    FIFY

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  12. The simple answer is to abandon the platform as I have.

    If it really is that important, I will find out.

    The rest is chum and noise which we live with in super duper abundance.

    Rodney King's Spirit (e2dd8e)

  13. Greetings:

    My mother had a little ditty that see used to sing to me when an appropriate situation arose. It went:

    Git along without you,
    Before I met you,
    Gonna get along without you now.

    Alternatively, for those California types: No Facebook, no Twitter, no Problem.

    11B40 (6abb5c) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:53 am

    It’s not nearly that simple.

    Take a look at the news: TV, print, internet. So much of it is driven by social media. Lazy people in charge of making news profitable look at the clicks and prioritize accordingly. “News you can use” has fallen victim to this morning’s internet video that is deemed “newsworthy” because “IT’S GONE VIRAL!” on Face/Twit/Tube/Gram.

    Due to that philosophy, rather than recoil at the idea that the POTUS is boosting the profile of some goofball loserette w/green lipstick who sits in a tubful of milk and Froot Loops rather than talk to journalists that won’t kiss his ass, they count the click$, link the video on their websites, and send the numbers to the ad sales department.

    The people behind the Facebook/Google/Yahoo/Twitter cartel — all social justice warriors of a sort — are invested in making damn sure that the democratization of information the internet has brought us only benefits capital-D Democrats. It DOES affect all of us. And that’s the reality, whether you acknowledge it or not.

    L.N. Smithee (472caf)

  14. I have email. I don’t have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or a smart phone. Actually, Patterico’s is my social platform. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  15. @L.N. Smithee: It DOES affect all of us.

    Lots of things “affect all of us”. But this particular issue is the result of the free choices of individuals. I think these are silly choices, of unserious individuals, but there we are. If people prefer that Facebook lie to them because they can’t give up Farmville or whatever, I acknowledge that it “affects all of us” that their vote counts just as much as yours or mine and that they will propel an Obama or a Hillary or a Trump to high office.

    But any cure you can think of, other than persuading them individually not to be stupid, is going to be worse than the disease.

    Sorry that the public are a bunch of idiots easily amused with shiny objects. T’was ever thus. Figure out how to adapt.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  16. Please forgive me if I seem to be picking on you, Gabriel.

    ” How did Zuckeberg identify himself as a sekrit Leftist in his application, and who the hell knew or cared who he was or what Facebook was?”

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 5/9/2016 @ 8:04 am

    Few of us believe that you are being serious here, and we understand that you have a broader point.

    Leftist , not unlike Rightests, self-identify. I ask you, how does one identify as a “secret” anything? Yes, I know, “tongue in cheek.” And finally, the government always “cares.” haven’t you paying attention?

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  17. Zuckerberg, hughes, sacca on Twitter were big Obama bundlers.

    narciso (1b4366)

  18. Custolo as well I believe.

    narciso (1b4366)

  19. Zuckerberg has egg on his Facebook.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  20. Omidyar of eBay who underwrites Greenwald.

    narciso (1b4366)

  21. You’ve gotta be an effing moron to use Facebook on this here people farm.

    Colonel Haiku (1ebff3)

  22. facebook isn’t a respectable use of time

    happyfeet (831175)

  23. I don’t have a problem with FB doing that. I have a problem with them not openly admitting that they do so.

    JD (7fd277)

  24. Who knew the KITH would be so prescient?

    KIDS (IN THE HALL) SAY THE DARNDEST THINGS: “This sketch from over 20 years ago anticipates the current mood of political correctness, trigger warnings…”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/233346/

    Colonel Haiku (1ebff3)

  25. @felipe: And finally, the government always “cares.” haven’t you paying attention?

    It’s like asking “does the government preferentially award building permits to good progressives” or “does the government preferentially award vehicle licensing to good progressives”. First, regardless of the motive existing, you’d have to show that it is in fact happening and if so how many people are even affected. Lois Lerner and 501(c) organizations, no question it happened. Patents, not so much.

    Second, this discussion is based on a flawed premise. The reason anyone is asking this question, “does the government preferentially award patents to good progressives”, is because people have the impression that because Facebook holds patents no one else can build Facebook. And that’s false. Facebook has patented specific software that does specific things as part of the Facebook platform. Here’s their last 20:

    E-mail interface having an informational tool tip
    Optical cold storage
    Social-based optimization of web crawling for online social networks
    Systems and methods for providing pixelation and depixelation animations for media content
    Systems and methods for dynamically identifying illegitimate accounts based on rules
    Measuring offsite advertising effectiveness
    Sharing revenue generated from presenting content to a group of online system users specified by a third-party system with the third party system
    Selection of a group of content items for presentation to an online system user based on content item characteristics and user attributes
    Animation sequence associated with content item
    Load balancing for multi-tiered querying
    Systems and methods for authenticating a user based on self-portrait media content
    Techniques for call-based user verification
    Policy partial results
    Recommendations based on geolocation
    Single frequency data network
    Interrupt driven memory signaling
    Multiple system images for over-the-air updates
    Social scores for network elements
    Facilitating sending and receiving of payments between users in a group
    Facilitating initiating payments without a payment credential

    Furthermore they have only patented specific implementations of these things, they have not patented the things themselves. You can’t file or buy the patent on “cinema” and shut down Hollywood. You can’t file or buy the patent on “motor vehicle” and shut down Toyota. Likewise Facebook’s patent on “systems and methods for dynamically identifying illegitimate accounts based on rules” doesn’t stop someone else from building software that accomplishes the same purpose in a different way.

    There is no law or patent that stops anyone from building their own platform that does what Facebook does for people. People use Facebook because they like that specific platform, not because it’s the only platform the government allows. And Facebook’s content policies only matter in the way that the New York Times’ letters to the editor pages matter: because they have market share, and the government is not the entity that is giving it to them, it is the free choice of the market.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  26. Yeah, I have to agree with Gabriel Hanna: Facebook has influence that it uses for progressive causes, but it’s not really because of any patents it holds. Like with any network-type phenomenon (language, currency) a significant part of what makes it useful is the large population of people that already use it and that you expect to continue using it.
    MySpace used to have such a population, Google+ tried to create such a population, and there are all sorts of other websites that have similar social-networking features.
    You could say that part of their influence comes from the way they helped design widely-used standards like the Open Graph protocol, but again:

    A. Nobody forces you (or other people/companies) to use those standards

    B. They created all sorts of standards that nobody ended up using

    CayleyGraph (353727)

  27. Greetings, L.N. Smithee: ( @ 5/9/2016 @ 8:19 am )

    As far as I’m concerned, Facebook is just another toy. If that’s how people want to wile away their hours, so be it.

    A couple of latent Catholic school lessons from the good Sisters of Mercy at St. Margaret Mary’s grammar school. “Avoid the near occasions of sin.” “When it comes to the temptation to sin, the Devil almost always has ease and/or pleasure on his side.”

    I think that these silicon based life forms are the early edition of the Borg. The effects on brain chemistry are not well studied but B.F. SKinner convinced me that rewarded behavior tend to be repeated. I believe that the brain’s pleasure centers can be over-simulated and that that’s not the way to true happiness so I avoid the entrapment.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  28. But, of course, a private business has every right to promote particular viewpoints.

    Facebook’s viewpoint is that filthmerica should bow to food stamp and pee-stank. That filtmericans should be taxed and regulated and that their towns and cities should be flooded with filthy diseased immigrant children. They want to take away your cars and they want your electric bills to skyrocket. They want you to slurp slurp the food stamps love and honor the muslim terrorists abort your babies and spend all your spare time on facebook.

    If you have a facebook account you’re helping them advance this agenda.

    This is who you are.

    happyfeet (831175)

  29. You don’t like it, don’t use it and let others know why you don’t. Users are being farmed, mapped, programmed, and exploited.

    Colonel Haiku (1ebff3)

  30. oops

    That *filthmericans* should be taxed and regulated i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  31. yeah i have an account but i only use it for

    lame

    happyfeet (831175)

  32. The comments here show how old many of the commentators on this site are. That’s not a judgmental statement, merely a statement showing you don’t understand how the younger generations act.

    Facebook, for the younger generation, is not an optional toy to use for fun that we can just shut off. It is a requirement for having a social life. As one example, I just had two friends who announced their engagement on Facebook, their wedding date on Facebook, sent out Save the Dates on Facebook, and invitations on Facebook. If you weren’t on Facebook and lived in another state, you would never have known about it until it was already over.

    Facebook is not something that can be ignored by conservatives. It is also not some nebulous future problem. It is the present, and we can’t ignore the problem of it shaping the conversation by hiding half of it by just saying that it is a site that you don’t have to belong to.

    Burnside (8fa39f)

  33. Some of my best friends are…on Facebook! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  34. The people I know who are on Facebook are middle-aged and older. The teenagers I know who are never off their iPhones are on Instagram.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. @Burnside:Facebook, for the younger generation, is not an optional toy to use for fun that we can just shut off. It is a requirement for having a social life.

    This is the outcome of free choices. There is always something like this for “kids today.” It is their free choice to adopt it and their free choice to stay with it and they are free to drop it at any time. In ten or twenty years it will be something else.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  36. @nk:The people I know who are on Facebook are middle-aged and older.

    Exactly.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  37. Skinner, Pavlov and Maslow would not be surprised at the success of the peck and drool toys or at their use as political tools. They wouldn’t be surprised by the USG choice of connect rather than communicate either. I don’t feel any need to ‘connect’ with the CIA or any other agency of the government but I certainly understand the desire of the government to ‘connect’ with me. Only for my own good, to be sure.

    Rick Ballard (44b7ba)

  38. Burnside’s right. It’s not like flipping the channel from the old Letterman show when you tire of Dave’s anti-Bush wisecracks. Facebook is not one of 250 channels to choose from. It is the proverbial television.
    Certainly, there’s email and some other online vehicles for staying in contact with friends, family, and colleagues, but right now, Facebook is the dominant force which even a lot of retired grandparents use to stay in touch with their grandkids who might live a couple of time zones away.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  39. @CruzSupporter:Facebook is not one of 250 channels to choose from. It is the proverbial television… Facebook is the dominant force

    Half of Americans never even use it at all, and the people for whom it susbtitutes for all other avenues of communication and information are only a tiny fraction of those who do use it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  40. I, too, agree with Gabriel’s points. I little prunning sometimes produces great fruit.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  41. The people I know who are on Facebook are middle-aged and older. The teenagers I know who are never off their iPhones are on Instagram.

    facebook owns instagram

    happyfeet (831175)

  42. Facebook, for the younger generation, is not an optional toy to use for fun that we can just shut off. It is a requirement for having a social life. As one example, I just had two friends who announced their engagement on Facebook, their wedding date on Facebook, sent out Save the Dates on Facebook, and invitations on Facebook. If you weren’t on Facebook and lived in another state, you would never have known about it until it was already over.

    Facebook is not something that can be ignored by conservatives. It is also not some nebulous future problem. It is the present, and we can’t ignore the problem of it shaping the conversation by hiding half of it by just saying that it is a site that you don’t have to belong to.

    Burnside (8fa39f) — 5/9/2016 @ 10:22 am

    Thanks for putting it better than I did. On top of that, Facebook has wiggled its way into just about every other site by being the forum through which other content is shared, and by being the shortcut into receiving entry into new sites (along with Gmail).

    When I first discovered this Gizmodo piece on Twitter, I tweeted that I expect someday someone formerly of the San Francisco-based media giant will admit jimmy-jacking around with Worldwide Topics. Brief example: Despite the fact that he’s dominated the media for most of the past ten months, Donald Trump and hashtags related boosting his candidacy (rather than lampooning him) rarely crack the top trends. On the other hand, when Jeb Bush announced he was ending his campaign, it shot directly to #1. That doesn’t make ANY sense.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  43. Gabriel Hanna, you finally have me convinced—Facebook isn’t impactful enough or popular enough to warrant concern. (LOL)

    ‘Saturday Night Live’ gets peanuts for viewership, but it’s still really impactful shaping the public perception of candidates during those couple of months leading up to a Presidential election.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  44. “A couple of latent Catholic school lessons from the good Sisters of Mercy at St. Margaret Mary’s grammar school. ‘Avoid the near occasions of sin.’ ‘When it comes to the temptation to sin, the Devil almost always has ease and/or pleasure on his side.'”

    Yep.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  45. A church in Ireland:

    — Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I blew up 20 miles of British Railway track.
    — For your penance, go and blow up the stations.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. Hopefully, Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram will one day (soon!) go the way of MySpace.

    Colonel Haiku (374706)

  47. Big Data farming people from little seedlings to trees, harvesting fruit all along the way

    Colonel Haiku (374706)

  48. their two minute hate, is still calibrate to ‘bush lied’

    narciso (732bc0)

  49. UPDATE: My guess is that the official answer is: there’s no problem if government hands out the patents without regard to the company’s political viewpoint.

    The next question is: do you believe that’s what they do?

    The government does not “hand out” patents. The government’s policies play absolutely no role in the process. Patent examiners approve or reject applications on objective criteria, and if they misapply them the aggrieved applicant goes to court. Individual patent examiners’ biases might sometimes play a marginal role, but there simply isn’t any way for the government’s opinions to affect the process at all.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  50. well we’re reducing the tenure on patents, thanks to the tpp,

    narciso (732bc0)

  51. ted cruz was a huge fan of wiscotrash paul ryan’s sleazy tpp plan

    until he flipper-floppered

    happyfeet (831175)

  52. What I meant to say is that while patents are a creation of the state, the government (i.e. administration) has nothing to do with them, and they are certainly not “handed out” as any sort of favor or patronage. Patent examiners are career civil servants, not political appointees, and in judging a patent application they are not allowed to take the applicant’s identity into account at all. The subjective element is entirely on the merits of the application itself, regardless of who submitted it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  53. Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleagues’ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  54. @Cruz Supporter:Facebook isn’t impactful enough or popular enough to warrant concern.

    Way to deliberately misunderstand.

    Presumably you are a small government conservative. Since Facebook’s influence is the result of free choices, what form does your “concern” take?

    It is just wailing and hand-wringing? Or is it “there ought be a law”?

    What do you think we ought to do about Facebook? I’ll wait to hear your answer.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  55. Leftist , not unlike Rightests, self-identify.

    On a patent application?! Do you think drivers’ licenses are also issued preferentially to leftists?!

    Milhouse (87c499)

  56. zuckertrash gets off hard on making people conform to his harvardtrash thoughts and feelings

    happyfeet (831175)

  57. @Milhouse:On a patent application?! Do you think drivers’ licenses are also issued preferentially to leftists?!

    I think the idea here is that it is Lois Lerner-ish, “oh it’s Facebook give them what they want” vs “it’s Breitbart so deny their patent” (if Breitbart.com were actually developing anything, which they aren’t).

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  58. Mr happyfeet, The Mr Donald was for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, and Pee Stank until he flip-flopped.
    That’ll be a wondrous line of attack on the debate stage…I supported Pee Stank for President in 2008, but now I’m for Me!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  59. first of all, lets get it straight, it’s some lives matter, like the ones who confront police,
    the victims in baltimore, ferguson, et al, chicago, can go fly a kite,

    narciso (732bc0)

  60. The USPTO is unlikely to be influenced by political concerns as the patent process is pretty clearly laid out. First to file, basically. There is some grey area regarding what is patentable, or novel, but there are several paths of appeal, both internally and through the courts.

    The Supreme Court has recently narrowed the scope of patents to avoid a lot of business-practice patents that characterized the 90’s and Facebook’s patents may or may not be enforceable for that reason — another avenue of appeal.

    Admittedly, utility patents are much more clearly defined than design patents, but are also much harder to get around. A design patent can be worked around fairly easily just by changing the look. And looking at FB or Linked In lately, I doubt you can patent cluttered and ugly.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  61. Ah, Mr. Feet. Do be careful when you criticize others…

    “…until he flipper-floppered…”

    …that you haven’t done the same thing about Mr. Trump.

    Because you have. And will.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  62. zuckertrash gets off hard on making people conform to his harvardtrash thoughts and feelings

    So Zucker and Cruz think alike now?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  63. I think the idea here is that it is Lois Lerner-ish, “oh it’s Facebook give them what they want” vs “it’s Breitbart so deny their patent” (if Breitbart.com were actually developing anything, which they aren’t).

    And that is a ridiculous supposition, particularly absent any indication that it might be happening.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  64. On another thread today I commented that “free markets and free enterprise are minority views even among commenters here”. We’re seeing more of that today.

    Here’s a product that many, many people have freely adopted. It comes with strings attached, as all such products do. And the people who don’t like that product are saying that it’s market dominance is somehow “unfair” and therefore not legitimate (because people HAVE TO use it, they just HAVE TO). What they think “ought to be done” about it likely varies, but they want that “unfairness” rectified, that’s for sure. As opposed to just letting Facebook usage be an idiot-self-selection device.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  65. and the vinklevossi, are behind bitcoin, I read it somewhere,

    narciso (732bc0)

  66. Trump hasn’t flip-flopped. He’s always been for raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, and against for against for Planned Parenthood. Just like we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  67. Gabriel Hanna,

    Relax yourself, friend.
    I’m not “for” doing anything to Facebook. The “concern” about Facebook is merely that there’s been a revelation that their news headline aggregators are instructed to avoid highlighting stories which put conservatives or conservative ideas in a positive light. We’re just having fun mocking Facebook for being exposed as yet another left wing tool that seeks to influence the unsuspecting masses who merely want to see photos of their old friends from high school.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  68. By the way, patents, unlike copyrights, expire in a reasonable time and cannot be extended.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  69. “On a patent application?! Do you think drivers’ licenses are also issued preferentially to leftists?!”

    Milhouse (87c499) — 5/9/2016 @ 11:26 am

    That must absolutely be the case, otherwise, how do you explain how leftists are always trying to push voter ID laws, and… oh, wait, apparently Dls are preferentially issued to Rightists – my bad.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  70. btw, facebook is covering up the suppression story, twitter is following up,

    narciso (732bc0)

  71. Anyway, as others have already found, it is not at the application/voting stage where preference is to be found, but at the approval/counting stage.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  72. zuckerberg’s injection tool is primed and ready at all times

    are *your* kids on facebook?

    happyfeet (831175)

  73. myspace was the really dark magic, conjured on mt. doom.

    narciso (732bc0)

  74. Here’s a product that many, many people have freely adopted. It comes with strings attached, as all such products do.

    The problem here is that Facebook is not doing what it claims to be, and is presenting what it claims is an objective ranking of news stories by popularity, when we now know that it isn’t. This is a kind of fraud on the reader, with consequences for everyone, much like Oliver Stone’s or Michael Moore’s films that purport to be factual, and that too many gullible people take as factual. There’s nothing that can legally be done about it, but it’s a matter of legitimate concern.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  75. A question for the GOP, and for The Donald:
    Given that the Facebook Mafia et al, played the voters in the last two presidential elections, why do you think you are immune from their efforts in this cycle?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  76. “IT’S THE 21ST CENTURY. By now, you’d have thought everyone would have an atomic heart!”

    Dyslexic Atomic Heart

    He darts and dances and they don’t know what he means
    They misconstrue, and they’re makin’ a scene
    They’re sayin’ it’s over, but it’s just the start
    They’re laying’ the blame, say there’s none on their part
    I try and understand ’em but I got an atomic heart
    I ain’t tryin’ to offend you, I got an atomic heart

    Thanks but no thanks, now their bed it is ready
    “If it ain’t Cruz, won’t be close”
    Between now and then, we gotta be steady
    Can’t just say, “none of those”
    Can’t elect that bi+ch Clinton, she ain’t Helen Reddy
    Help me with this part
    Don’t wanna hate you or forsake you
    But I got an atomic heart

    Colonel Haiku (374706)

  77. Shock: State Department Says It Can’t Find the Emails of the IT Guy Who Helped Hillary Clinton Hide Her Emails from the State Department

    “The State Department has been unable to locate any emails that were sent to or from Hillary Clinton’s former IT aide at the department, according a Monday court filing.
    The statement was made by lawyers responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee…

    Former IT aide Bryan Pagliano served at the department for nearly the entirety of Clinton’s tenure from 2009-13. He was responsible for establishing a private server in the basement of Clinton’s home, which was allegedly unknown to anyone else at the department until after Clinton had left.”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/363346.php

    Colonel Haiku (374706)

  78. you don’t censor here? pot calling the kettle black again.

    facebook (b3d7da)

  79. facebook lies about their policies whereas Mr. P is very transparent

    Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum. Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook. There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality. These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives.

    facebook says they’re neutral

    this is a lie

    what we’ve learned is that facebook is run by propaganda sluts

    happyfeet (831175)

  80. so you get to censor but others can’t right.

    facebook (b3d7da)

  81. you need to make more better points

    happyfeet (831175)

  82. GMail seems to have taken your newsletter out of my Inbox, and I can’t get it back in. I can only get it by searching for Patterico. What category it is in, I don’t know, and whatever way to DeSelect all categories, I con’t know.

    It seems I can move it to the Inbox. I don’t know if that will work for new messages.

    Do you mind if anybody subscribes to your new newsletetr at more than one e-mail address, or are you concerned that that will that throw off your count of subscribers?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  83. Google does things also with their search algorithm. (Some they have to, if they don’t want neo-Nazi websites appearing at the top of searches for the word “Jew”)

    But in general Google keeps people in a big bubble. Their whole Page rank system is a big bubble. (except it is biased toward Wikipedia and toward blogs|

    If you want to find out something that Google is not giving you the answer to, try Bing, even though maybe it may have fewer pages.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  84. We are surprised by this news? I am not usually Mr Negative, but there is stories all over about how the Silicon Valley tech groups have chosen to participate in censorship and hate, while using the claims of anti-hate and censorship to not invest in cities, states, fire people, not hire people. It is just that now they are admitting to the “crime” if it’s such a crime. Why are we acting shocked like a Casablanca police officer to discover that gambling is going on in a club that is labeled gambling hall?

    Charles (1dc0d7)

  85. 1) When I use the full desktop FB site, the trending stories seem to be, in as much as they have political focus, not biased to leftist stories

    2)But….IMPORTANT But!

    On the mobile site, which is what I need to use when I want to comment and share while using my Android tablet, trending stories are not shown as all.

    Which means that for all those who view Facebook on their phones or tablets, this whole issue is actually irrelevant

    (Don’t know about the FB Android app, which I have never used)

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  86. FWIW,
    I think it is interesting to see this level of “documentation” of what we know to be true
    And like CS said, I don’t see people wanting to punish FB just because it is big and popular,

    But I think it has been an issue ever since media giving second and third hand accounts appeared (I guess oral history), and gets worse as the amount of information explodes and is managed and manipulated in ways we do not realize.

    I don’t want to do anything to facebook or any other media source, unless they can be shown to be fraudulent in what they claim to be and what they are,
    as far as the perception by the majority of the public that everything is even handed,

    that has been a major issue at least since Walter Cronkite deceived the country
    other than educating people and teaching them to think for themselves
    there is no short cut

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  87. no I wouldn’t either, but it’s another venue to propagate narratives,

    if you read the inquirer or whichever local paper, you get a very thin gruel,

    narciso (732bc0)

  88. I stopped reading the Inquirer a very long time ago
    I stopped reading most things long ago

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  89. I’ve been hoping that some bright young techies will get the idea to create a FB type site dedicated to Christian conservative ideas. Besides creating a valuable outlet for Christian conservative ideas they’d also make a ton of money. More and more corporations of every kind are increasingly open about opposing Christian conservatives, and it seems to me are creating an opening you could drive a truck through for some Christian entrepreneurs to take a fairly sizable chunk of business away. The recent backlash against Target shows the potential. Of course liberals wouldn’t patronize these alternative businesses but it wouldn’t matter, since they wouldn’t be seeking to get everyone.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  90. I think Eich was working on a browser.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  91. What I thought would be interesting would be a site that dissected what was in the media,
    like what P did with the dog trainer
    Pointing out how just the use of language in framing a debate was skewed.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  92. What I thought would be interesting would be a site that dissected what was in the media,

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/9/2016 @ 8:11 pm

    We already have Accuracy in Media.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  93. Eich’s browser is called Brave

    https://www.brave.com

    I downloaded the Android version, but stopped using it. It is very much a work in process. At the moment, no bookmark capability. It would crash on me at least once every browsing session, and did not seem to save on data usage.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  94. And MRC

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. It’s out, MD. https://www.brave.com/ A while back, Steve57 reported, here, that he had installed it but was having problem with it.

    nk (dbc370)

  96. Ah, kishnevi beat me to it.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. nk, great minds think alike.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  98. you don’t censor here? pot calling the kettle black again.

    This is not about censorship. Facebook did not censor anybody, and no one is claiming that it did. This is about something very different: Facebook offered a service, a feed of the news stories that its readers are looking at. The explicit premise of this service is that Facebook itself plays no role in the selection or ranking of stories; if a story you are interested in doesn’t appear, it’s because not many other users are looking at it, so if you want to boost it you should tell people about it and if you are successful it will automatically appear. But it now appears that this was not true. Stories that were genuinely trending were removed from the feed, and other stories that were falling flat were injected. That’s not censorship, it’s Facebook misleading its readers, and misrepresenting what this feed actually is.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  99. R.I.P. William Schallert, actor whom everyone that has ever watched old tv shows will recognize immediately

    Icy (4f33a9)

  100. If FB www up front and honest and open about this, I doubt anyone would complain. They can do what they want, their product. But they know they would lose users and advertisers. So they claim to be impartial. Kind of sounds like the MFM.

    JD (5abd66)

  101. #105 Icy,

    I was watching an episode of an old tv show just last week, and Schallert was on it. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  102. Others said it, but the odds of political requirements (or “requirements”) for patents is extremely unlikely. Especially for software, they hand them out like candy. I really wish they wouldn’t (I write software for a living). But the PTO is a government profit center run by true believers in the concept that ideas need to be owned.

    You all certainly would think of me as a leftist, so let this one say that this is shameful. Reason #673 Facebook should die. That sort of ham-fisted crap gives me hope that it will – that was stupid. I refuse to use FB, hate that it takes constant network maintenance to block their tracking, and wish more friends/family remembered that email still exists. That they apparently believe they know better than their users when it comes to politics takes them from creepy to evil.

    Facebook can die in a fire.

    Jamie (ec7f83)

  103. Jamie,
    As long as you want fact based thoughtful dialogue,
    come back often, please.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  104. I’ll have to look up accuracy in media
    And as I remembered, Eich’s effort is a work in process

    There is a good reason why I come here

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  105. If you have problems with Brave, feel free to contact support. They write back and want to make it work, and so do I. I seethe every time I have to use Firefox, and hope that Eich can beat the SJW bigots at their own game.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1287 secs.