
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News - uptown
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006?rev=1462799465508
======
throwit992
I have no great love of conservative politics, but there's a convincing
argument to be made that their ideas and views are routinely suppressed by
media outside of explicitly partisan media outlets (i.e. Fox News or talk
radio).

There are a number of studies that back up this claim. A 2008 study[0] found
that 88% of journalists donate to the Democratic party. Jonathan Haidt has
shown[1] that non-economics social sciences skew more than 14-1 liberal to
conservative (and that universities have not always been so skewed).

For anyone who believes these statistics are not based on overt discrimination
based on political viewpoint, a recent study[2] showed that discrimination by
party is stronger than that of race. The study did so by reproducing a
landmark study that demonstrated the existence of unconscious racial bias (the
implicit association test), but instead using political indicators. They found
that partisan political positions triggered implicit associations 50% stronger
than that of racial biases. There is also a recent book called "Passing on the
Right"[3] which provides some personal narratives of conservative academics.

If you're relying on academic knowledge to provide you a sense of reality,
you're viewing reality through a lens that is biased to a 93% degree towards
one political pole, and then receiving that knowledge through a media system
which is biased to an 88% degree towards that same political pole.

Even if you, like me, generally believe that the liberal political position is
correct, ideological conformity of this magnitude should frighten you.

[0]
[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/130902](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/130902)

[1] [http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-
of-...](http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-
diversity/)

[2] [https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-
po...](https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-
polarization.pdf)

[3] [https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book-
deta...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book-details-
realities-being-conservative-professor-humanities-and-social)

~~~
pj_mukh
This "seems" like an American phenomenon. As a liberal, I can have a fully
formed debate with a British Conservative, A Canadian conservative, a European
conservative (sans latent Nazism), however the dominant American conservative
seems to be operating on a completely different plain and set of assumptions.
I find it extremely difficult to relate to and debate the American
conservative. In general, if an american <insert institution here> (college,
newspaper etc.) seems uber-liberal in America, it is just run-of-the-mill
centrist in most other countries. Not because of any stated or unstated
institutional biases, but simply because its been labelled so by a relentless,
uncompromising, hyper-focussed and hugely disciplined conservative media
looking for easy answers.

P.S: Also the predilection to openly say "Compromise is impossible", esp
behind the scenes, also seems to be a unique attribute of the American
Conservative.

~~~
SFLemonade
Many American liberals are just as hard-headed and difficult to debate with.
The Overton Window has shifted in the past couple years and the original
leftists are now centrists. America has become radically polarized and the
radical liberals and just as dangerous and closed-minded as the radical
conservatives.

You should also bear in mind that you're commenting on an article where
liberals deliberately censored conservative news media. That doesn't do much
to support your assertions.

The fact that the American leftist view would be considered centrist in most
other countries (like, for example, the nordic countries) is essentially
meaningless. Just because "left" takes on different meanings or extremes in
different parts of the world doesn't mean that the US is behind or should
become more left. To compare US politics to those of Finland, Switzerland, or
even Canada is completely absurd. We are a fundamentally different people,
system, land mass, you name it. Our political system must take that into
account.

~~~
pj_mukh
Point being, Facebook's audience is majority international and it most of all
wants to make money. If you occam's razor this, Facebook is simply presenting
people with what they want to hear (a well-proven phenomenon[1]). The report
has shown nothing to prove that there is some sort of committee that decides
which political stances facebook is going to shove down people's throats, but
we know it has MULTIPLE groups trying to increase engagement. The
international community believes that the American right is nuts, voila,
Facebook selectively presents this as the dominant news. Click, click,
click...PROFIT.

[1]:[https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_b...](https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles?language=en))

~~~
SFLemonade
I totally see what you're saying, but that's not what happened here. This was
deliberate and subjective curation by a group of similarly politically minded
individuals, despite the fact that the feed appeared to be organic. They were
pushing a political agenda in the US.

~~~
pj_mukh
Yes, I can see how this can be interpreted as that but I don't see any
evidence of this in the report. All it says is, some un-named higher up
sometimes made the call of what to show and what to not? Based on what?
Liberal talking points or carefully measured clickbait titles that had
previously led to more user engagement. Given their recent earnings report,
what is more likely?

------
s3r3nity
[Disclosure: I'm an ex-FB employee.]

This is a bit of a click-bait title, and is somewhat true -- but not in the
way you think.

When FB was developing hashtags and content features, there was a concern that
it is tough to find a middle-ground between 100% purely algorithmic generated
content (i.e. leverage tastes data and supply articles suited to your
interests) and 100% curated content (i.e. leverage tastes data, but only show
articles from "reputable" sources and/or highly rated content, over shitty
blog posts from amateurs.) The latter tends to do really well for engagement,
as users can trust that the content they're seeing is reputable and popular.
However the big concern that a number of us were raising was that tech
companies have employees that are very biased in ways that they cannot
control: they're younger, more liberal, and somewhat higher income, than the
average FB user.

In my time there, I never heard of _explicit_ suppression of any viewpoints -
with the exception of recent disagreements around the "Black Lives Matter"
protests, the first time that I encountered a situation where disagreeing
meant you were labelled a "racist" \- but I can see why well-intentioned
product and policy decisions led FB content down this hole.

~~~
marknutter
Crazy, there was someone who just posted a rant against BLM in response to
this s3r3nity's comment and it was deleted like two minutes ago. Does HN
suffer from the same censorship that Facebook does?

~~~
some-guy
Nothing wrong with that -- as HN readers we can flag / downvote comments and
perform our own collective self-censorship (for better or worse).

~~~
pdeuchler
except when HN readers flag comments they show up as dead and are in grey
text, whereas this was entirely deleted

~~~
colejohnson66
The poster can delete their post within 2 hours, right?

------
pavlov
The American two-party system is so weird. It tries to condense a complex
matrix of sometimes-overlapping and fluid opinion scales -- socially
conservative vs. socially liberal, globalist vs. protectionist,
environmentalist vs. laissez-faire capitalist, and so on -- into one binary
value. And somehow people have become convinced that not only is such a binary
scale meaningful, but also the only available choice.

In many European democracies there's a functional multi-party system where
parties appear and disappear over time to reflect voters' opinions. For
example, there might be a protectionist right-wing party that's favored by
farmers, and another one that supports free trade and listens to big business.
Same happens on all the axes. Governments are formed as coalitions of these
"SMB-sized" parties based on the votes. It's not "winner takes all", but
rather "winners and not-so-bad-losers negotiate to find common ground".

What if the Republican and Democratic parties would break up into 6-10 new
parties to better represent the actual opinions of the existing divisions
within these parties?

Statistics like "88% of journalists are anti-conservative" show how difficult
it's to say anything meaningful about a polarized political field. To look at
it another way, that 12% is roughly the level of support that extreme right-
wing political parties enjoy in Europe these days. Lumping 88% of European
voters together as one party would be ridiculous because that party would
contain both former communists and free-trade globalists.

~~~
pj_mukh
Agreed, and to me, this is a direct result of media organizations' extreme
biases in America. This seems to be the missing link. I don't know of many
non-American hyper-conservative media organizations that have directly tied
their profit motive to how virulently their viewers believe that POV and are
WILDLY successful at it.

~~~
tormeh
No, it's a result of the voting system. It will never change unless the
Constitution changes. The best you can hope for without constitutional change
is something like Britain; i.e. still a two-party system but less extreme
differences. I think the extreme differences in the US vs the UK is less
because of the media (british media is nastier than US in many ways) and more
because UK society is more unified.

~~~
Terr_
> It will never change unless the Constitution changes.

Not necessarily, there's still quite a lot of wiggle-room: Except for some
narrow areas (Electoral College, impeachment, vacancies, etc.) the
Constitution doesn't narrowly define votes as single data-points.

If nothing else, individual states can use "better than plurality" systems to
determine their picks for State and Federal legislature.

------
bunkydoo
I hate how Silicon Valley culture makes it seem like they are all for freedom
of information and how the big bad government is censoring and surveilling
things from a bunch of innocent hackers (startup guys) when in reality if
given the opportunity this crowd does the EXACT same thing. I have limited
respect for either party

~~~
dmix
Tech companies are not immune to the negative side effects that come with
large centralized institutions, even if it started in Silicon Valley. I don't
believe we're ignorant to this fact.

We tend to rally against centralization and attempts to control information.
Which is exactly why this is frontpage on HN.

FB has been consistently attacked for this type of stuff for years. That's a
healthy sign of our community valuing freedom/markets/algorithms over the
risks of handing over large amounts of power to a few humans. It seems even
Facebook even values this approach as their own technology reaches parity with
human curation:

> Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved,
> there were fewer instances of stories being injected.

------
patrickg_zill
The issue is that FB advertises itself as "conduit" or "network connection".
You log in, communicate with people and the site tools, FB runs ads on your
eyeballs, etc.

Similar to how I give my electricity provider money, and they give me
electricity.

Now FB clearly sees themselves as (let's be honest) a "power broker" or "rain
maker". Not the same as "utility" or "network connection" or "conduit".

~~~
cududa
I don't think I've looked at Facebook like that at all since they started
using an algorithmic newsfeed. I was under the impression that that confirmed
them as a "power broker" to pretty much everyone. If you're looking for a
"utility" or "network connection" I'd direct you to app.net if they're even
still in business

~~~
proksoup
Twitter even, for the most part as far as I understand gives you complete
control over your feed, with the (minor?) exceptions of promoted tweets and
suggested followers.

It's worth noting the candidate who has been most successful (or at least
taken advantage of it) on that platform might fit the parent article's
definition of conservative (or at least the sort of content they are
suppressing).

~~~
bobwaycott
Hasn't Twitter recently been tweaking user feeds based on algorithms? Pretty
sure I've been seeing mine out of order, with all manner of "you might have
missed" and "stuff we think is relevant to you" tweets injected at the top. I
think I recently had to flip a setting to try turning off this "stuff we think
is relevant to you" off. Maybe that's the promoted tweets, or are those the
ads?

------
welanes
I, and most of my friends, are liberal minded. After The Guardian established
a policy of (ironically) closing comments on their Comment Is Free section
when the article relates to refugees or Muslims, I decided to include sites
like Fox, Breitbart etc. into my daily feed. (I found the reflex to stifle
debate deplorable and wanted to step outside the echo chamber).

Discussions with friends have become more interesting for sure as I reveal
their biases.

From defending real violence over threats of violence, (Trump rallies and
protests) to ignoring crime statistics, to just being woefully ignorant of
what position the other side actually holds, it's incredible to see just how
steadfast the Left can be in their ignorance.

------
jrehor
Reading this must make China feel they made the right decision in banning
Facebook. Not that they care about liberal v. conservative, but having their
population manipulated by a cabal of Ivy Leaguers is a non-starter. The
Chinese will run their own manipulation program, thank you very much.

Other governments may be starting to come to the same conclusion.

------
ape4
Some newspapers have well known left or right leanings. But its declared and
out in the open. Most people thought Facebook news was organically trending.
That's the difference here.

~~~
kps

      > Most people thought Facebook news was organically trending. 
    

“They trust me. Dumb fucks.”

~~~
matamiraj
Protocol #12:4 - “NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR
CONTROL. All news items are received by a few agencies from all parts of the
world. These agencies will be entirely in our control and will give publicity
only to what we dictate to them.”

------
nil_is_me
It has been blatantly clear something is up with their Trending algorithm when
you notice there is a Trending: Hillary Clinton header on top of every single
shared Bernie Sanders article. Never once have I seen a Trending: Bernie
Sander header.

~~~
fisherjeff
Given Facebook's influence and the sheer size of their userbase, the potential
long-term implications of this particular kind of manipulation are...
unsettling.

~~~
dba7dba
I am not surprised Facebook has been doing this.

It's ironic. Silicon Valley is all about question the authorities. Ask why.

And now we hear stories like these Orwellian like practices...

This will be another interesting topic historians will examine years from now.
What happens when an outsider/outcast/underdog group becomes the
insiders/powerful. Do they act like tycoons in the past (using power to
preserve itself) or keep true to the spirit of outsider/outcast that may lead
to its demise?

I vote for Silicon Valley powers becoming like the past tycoons.

~~~
chillacy
I once watched a group of pigeons in a park fight for food. The biggest pigeon
bullied all the other pigeons. I thought that was unfair... he was getting all
the food. So I shooed him away. Immediately afterwards, one of the formerly
bullied pigeons became the new bully.

Power is a funny thing... and I suspect people aren't so different than other
animals in this regard.

------
gourou
It's crazy how Facebook and Google could tip the scale during Election Year
[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-
co...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-
the-2016-election-121548)

------
Gratsby
This seems like a story built specifically for a segment on Fox News where the
newscasters feign shock and horror that their news topics aren't being covered
by "mainstream media".

Of course trending news is curated. All hell would break loose otherwise.

There is no shortage of rabid political content conservative or otherwise on
Facebook. A good part of the end user community would rather not deal with it.

~~~
wfo
An angry conservative who worked at Facebook was shocked and horrified when he
was instructed to remove the breitbart 'story' about how Obama is actually a
secret Muslim terrorist from Benghazi and is throwing a hissy fit all over the
internet.

Not necessarily the case, but this is certainly my initial assessment of the
situation without learning more.

~~~
jandrese
Yeah, without some concrete examples it's hard to know exactly what is going
on here.

That said, Facebook is certainly not coming out of this smelling like roses.
The "Top Stories" mode is horrible, and Facebook tries really really hard to
force you into it, especially on mobile. IMHO it is going to be the death of
them in the long term. When they're yet another Friendster/MySpace/etc... this
is what I'm going to point to.

~~~
basch
when did myspace algorithmically autosort news stories? the products arent
even in the same category.

~~~
jandrese
In terms of now defunct social networks...

Ok, Myspace isn't technically dead, but its heyday is definitely over.

~~~
basch
but youre comparing two completely different products that get lumped into the
same "social network" category, when really the have very little in common
anymore.

myspace had profiles, that was it.

------
kaendfinger
Regardless of political opinion, I think it's disgraceful to only show biased
views.

~~~
elthran
I disagree - It's a private company's prerogative to display whatever content
they wish - A competitor could choose to suppress liberal articles.

As long as they are not breaking any relevant speech laws, then I see nothing
wrong with their actions. If we shut down all biased media, all we'd really be
left with is the BBC (although a large number of people would disagree here)

~~~
jscheel
They absolutely have a right to display what they want. However, just as Fox
News gets slammed for claiming to be "fair and balanced", Facebook should be
shown the same contempt for claiming their news is in any way an actual
representation of what is trending on Facebook. They have a right to do it,
but that doesn't mean users have to be ok with it. Furthermore, I would much
rather have a biased editorial process that is run by people that have at
least been exposed to so form of media ethics, than a bunch of tech managers
telling recent Ivy-league graduates what to curate.

------
exabrial
It really bothers me that acceptable forms of protests are now:
intimidation(1), harassment(2), and subversion(this).

If your cause is just, isn't a non-violent protest enough? Speaking about it,
voting with your dollar, etc?

1) [http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox-
be...](http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox-because-of-
ceos-1555616237)

2)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy)

~~~
mikeash
I see no intimidation for (1), just a straightforward statement of preference.
(2) is not considered acceptable. And I'm going to bet that this behavior is
not going to be considered acceptable either. Certainly the linked story
doesn't portray it as acceptable, and at the moment nearly every HN comment
here is critical.

------
notliketherest
The problem is, as a private company, should Facebook choose to manipulate
it's news feed algorithm to promote one candidate or the other, or for
whatever reason, this would be its prerogative under the First Amendment. I
personally choose to not use Facebook specifically for these reasons. Even
though I know many Facebook employees personally, I don't trust it's employees
to divorce their own interests and their powerful position as Facebook's
curators.

~~~
jimmytidey
Any democratic country depends on the quality of public discourse for the
effectiveness of its political system, and for this reason many countries have
special rules for newspapers and TV.

What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply
because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be
covered by those laws.

One defence Facebook might consider is to say that it simply reflects the
preferences of its readers algorithmically. However, this article shows that
is not the case, and that the company does exercise editorial judgement. Of
course, the design of the algorithms is tacit editorialising anyway, so the
whole point is moot to me.

While we are considering the fact that FB is a private company (actually a
public company), some might be inclined to say that if users realise Facebook
cannot be trusted, then they will leave the site causing its revenues to
decrease. Other more honest and transparent competitors will take its place.
However, in practise there are many reasons to think this won't happen, which
is why we have special laws for the press in the first place.

~~~
1024core
> What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply
> because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be
> covered by those laws.

Is Fox "News" covered by these laws? Surely you're not suggesting with a
straight face that Fox News is "fair and balanced" ?

~~~
SFLemonade
Are you suggesting with a straight face that CNN "News" is fair and balanced?
Or perhaps any of the myriad of blatantly politically charged companies out of
Silicon Valley?

It happens on both sides, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the
left is much more guilty of this than the right. Fox News has become a meme
because it is the only mainstream news source that blatantly shows
conservative bias. Try pointing to mainstream news sources that blatantly show
liberal bias and you'd lose count.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are you suggesting with a straight face that CNN "News" is fair and
> balanced?

No, it just has slightly weaker right-wing bias than Fox.

~~~
jobadev
That's why they support Hillary.

~~~
pdkl95
CNN (and many other media companies) support Hillary because they are pro-
corporate and pro-status-quo.

They have _de facto_ supported nonsensical positions because CNN pioneered the
"two sides to every argument" stupidity in their effort to look "unbiased".
CNN's reporting is heavily distorted, but the distortion is usually giving
credibility when it isn't deserved. Fox simply pushes their agenda directly,
while CNN gives cranks a stage no matter how stupid their position is, because
calling out even the obviously wrong is "biased". Often this involves
conservative opinions (for varying definitions of "conservative"), but almost
every opinion of every topic gets the same treatment from CNN.

------
lazzlazzlazz
> “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on
> who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator.

> 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.

It sounds like any issues were from curators who weren't being adequately
supervised, instead of top-down orders from executives at Facebook.

This is different than what the current Hacker News headline suggests. Can we
all collectively read the article and understand that the issue is different
than our preconceptions lead us to believe?

~~~
gunshigh
Or Facebook has learned the art of Plausible Deniability.

If the bias happens during hiring (by preferring candidates who naturally lean
left), then Facebook merely needs to give them curation power without giving
explicit instructions.

~~~
lazzlazzlazz
This sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to take very seriously. Never
attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence.

~~~
gunshigh
> The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that "we need to do some work" on
> curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. "Are you working
> on this?" Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the
> affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

[http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-
hot-m...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-
pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html)

------
carsongross
I am a conservative and I see nothing wrong with this. It is their software
and their servers, after all.

I _want_ a collapse in trust in the major social networks. This is the
internet we are talking about. Let them suppress, and let them see what
happens.

~~~
ChemicalWarfare
If this was a partisan media outlet like CNN, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, etc etc ad
nauseam or FOX news (is there any other conservative network?), then yeah this
would be expected.

The issue here is for the 'unsuspecting user' Facebook doesn't present itself
as a partisan resource. There's nothing 'wrong' with this per se as long as
the user understands who they are dealing with, which articles like this one
help in that respect.

~~~
protomyth
> FOX news (is there any other conservative network?)

Not on TV. Fox Business has quite a lot of libertarians (and some really,
really devote Trump supporters). CNN did hire some conservatives who are
actual conservatives recently (e.g. Mary Katharine Ham), but it really doesn't
change the editorial.

------
maldusiecle
I'd be interested to know a little bit more about how this relates to the news
sites that are covering the story. Breitbart isn't much better than a tabloid
--arguably worse, even. It's equivalent to leftwing sites like Alternet, which
I also wouldn't expect Facebook to be comfortable linking to.

~~~
rjeli
The article says they censor the Drudge Report, which is much more reliable
than Breitbart.

~~~
maldusiecle
I'm confused by this comment, because to my eyes the Drudge Report frontpage
looks like it was consciously modeled on tabloids. Obviously for historical
reasons they have some importance--but so do some tabloids.

To clarify, I think this an issue of respectability, not reliability.

------
morgante
Keep in mind that this allegation is coming from a single conservative curator
who no longer works there.

And even he seems pretty indecisive about it being an institutional bias: "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."

If Facebook is trying to suppress conservative news, they're doing a terrible
job of it. I see far more Trump than I would like.

~~~
partiallypro
> Keep in mind that this allegation is coming from a single conservative
> curator who no longer works there.

This is false, the headline even alludes to it being more than a single
source. The entire article uses plural terms and refers to 'several.' I think
you read the lede, but skipped the rest.

~~~
djur
From the article:

> 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.

------
littletimmy
The more I hear about what Facebook has become, the less I like it.

Previously we heard that they run experiments to alter users news feeds to see
if they could alter their mood, now we learn they're engaging in what is
basically propaganda by suppressing certain viewpoints. And all this for what?
So that you can be advertised to while you waste your time on the internet.
What a terrible company. Speaks ill of humanity that it is so popular.

------
throwaway2016a
Anecdotal: apparently this isn't work for me. My news feed is FILLed with
conservative election news. How can I enable this feature ;)

~~~
dba7dba
Apparently you are too conservative according to Facebook? Or too many friends
that are conservative?

~~~
Grishnakh
He probably has too many conservative friends. FB seems to think that just
because you've "friended" people that you want to see, and agree with, all the
inane political bullshit they post.

One of many reasons I don't use FB. I keep an account on there for a few
reasons, but I almost never actually look at it.

------
DanielBMarkham
People are people. In a way this isn't news at all.

The problem is that these companies are hiding behind the "But it's all just
an algorithm" defense, when, in fact, as we all suspected, there are real
people behind the scenes slanting things.

My gut tells me that a lot of tech companies are subtly controlling the types
of news their consumers get. Overall this is probably a good thing -- helps
keep the quality high. But I'm a libertarian. If a bunch of left-leaning folks
start controlling what I consume from a political angle and not just quality
angle -- and then lie about it? Really pisses me off.

Yes, you're a private company. Do whatever you want. It's the lying that's the
problem here -- and the implication that the electorate needs people better
than they are to control and guide what they're allowed to talk about.

I bet we continue to hear about this, and in places most people would never
suspect, over the coming decade or two. This is unacceptable, and something is
going to need to give somewhere.

~~~
bobwaycott
Genuinely curious:

As a libertarian, are you equally pissed off when a bunch of right-leaning
folks start controlling what you consume from a political, and not just
quality, angle—and then lie about it?

~~~
dba7dba
Yes libertarians would be pissed if right-leaners control news. But the topic
here is facebook. Let's stay on topic.

~~~
krapp
Stop telling people what the topic is, please. This is a public forum, you
can't control other people's conversations, or determine the validity of their
interests.

Post a comment about Facebook that's worth replying to if you want to steer
things away from politics.

~~~
dba7dba
@krapp

EDIT: I said stay on topic, because some will try to go tangent to prevent
meaningful discussion on the real topic. Much like politicians not answering
questions. This achieves one's goal of causing FUD to keep the
person/organization's brand from getting tarnished.

If facebook comes out saying it's not true, will anyone really believe them,
knowing their past practices?

Facebook has a lot of eyeballs looking and thus influence, and so the higher-
ups there now want to use it to influence others. Much like celebrities do.

And they got to such position of influence using not so good tactics. Are
people ok with this? My guess is not.

------
oarsinsync
TL;DR 'Trending News' is actually 'Curated News'

~~~
bobwaycott
Thanks to a tool that specifically allows modifying the news shown to users
and the alleged biases of curator contractors who seem to have no
accountability checks.

~~~
alistairSH
I wouldn't say "no accountability checks." The article references instances
where the curators were instructed to boost non-trending stories. So, they are
being actively managed. And, presumably can be replaced easily if their
curating deviates from Facebook's wishes.

~~~
bobwaycott
I suppose I meant enforcement of a policy that prohibited modifying the news
identified by algorithms.

------
brown9-2
Let's actually examine the claims:

 _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._

What scandals were being discussed yet suppressed from the "trending news"
list out of these examples? How many of these examples are actual news
stories? The IRS thing turned out to be overblown bullshit, what about the
rest of them?

When was the last time you heard your friends talking about Scott Walker, the
guy who flopped in the polls and dropped out of the race _before a single
primary_?

It shouldn't be surprising if these curators decided to wait to see if a story
being shared from breitbart.com was reported by bigger news outlets first.
Many of these so-called conservative media outlets have a terrible record on
reporting actual news.

It is possible that Facebook suppresses actual news. It is also possible that
this source (falsely) believed that not-really-news-or-trending stories were
"suppressed" when in fact they were just not popular or smelt like bullshit.

~~~
AndrewGaspar
> What scandals were being discussed yet suppressed from the "trending news"
> list out of these examples? How many of these examples are actual news
> stories? The IRS thing turned out to be overblown bullshit, what about the
> rest of them?

Is that actually true? The IRS' claim that every drive containing copies of
the emails failed makes anything I hear from their side completely non-
credible, in my opinion. Technically there is a chance of 100% drive failure,
so I can't claim with complete certainty that they're full of it, but I think
there were at least three 9s of the claim being bullshit the last time I ran
through the numbers.

------
hugh4life
I always use uBlock's "element picker" to block out trending topic lists as I
find them somewhat manipulative.

1) I do sometimes suspect biased curation 2) They can be astroturfed 3) Even
if spontaneous there's a virtual mob mentality that comes with trending
topics.

Trending topic lists are ok if they're on their own separate page but when you
have it upfront the subtext is "this is what you must care or know about".

------
partiallypro
I am confused why Facebook needs news curators to begin with? Why can't the
news just be organic entirely and use ML to curate it per person. I can
understand blacklisting certain sites or topics just for pure sanity or
appropriateness. Having people as curators just seems like wasted capital.

Anyhow, I find this abhorrent, but I think Facebook has every right to do it
as a private entity. I don't think they have a social responsibility to be
100% even. What does bother me is that they claim to be evenhanded, I do want
transparency, especially when you are basically the monopoly in social media
(excluding Snapchat and Twitter, they own everything.)

This also presents a problem, I think with Twitter's new algorithmic timeline
and why the real-time feed is vastly superior for their model (I'll beat this
dead horse until Jack realizes how dumb it is.)

------
nil_is_me
What happened to the other thread on this?

~~~
angersock
Hint: FB is not the only place that has heavy censorhsip.

------
VladKovac
If you actually read the article it says "there is no evidence that Facebook
management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work". In other
words this title is click-bait bullshit, it was up to the curators discretion.

------
zepto
Note that the source for this is a single self-identified conservative ex-
contractor.

~~~
Mendenhall
That is not true.

"Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-
wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively."

~~~
PhantomGremlin
Try posting a link to a Breitbart story here on HN. It's silently suppressed.
Doesn't even appear in 'new'. Whereas links to rt.com are welcome. That's just
how things are, comrade! :)

My previous rant:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518592)

~~~
xenadu02
Because Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sensationalist sources of
nonsense on the Internet, right up there with Infowars.

The fact is the truth isn't somewhere in the middle. We shouldn't be
encouraging disingenuous assholes by giving them a platform to spread
deliberate lies and mis-information, no matter whether that source is
"conservative" or "liberal".

~~~
PhantomGremlin
I'm actually quite proud of my Breitbart submission. I thought it was a
newsworthy story, that added valuable additional information to a topic we had
been discussing.

But yeah, let's just call everyone we disagree with "disingenuous assholes".
The Breitbart story I tried to submit was: [http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2015/09/07/exclusive...](http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2015/09/07/exclusive-displaced-cast-member-how-disney-replaced-me-
other-americans-with-cheap-foreigners-on-h1b-visas/)

Try clicking on this HN link:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182135](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182135)

You can't even see the link at all as an anonymous user. I don't know if it
shows up for people to have 'showdead' enabled, or if it's equivalent of a
hellban, where I'm the only one who can see it.

------
chris_wot
See also:
[http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/careers/careersnews/9117323/fa...](http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/careers/careersnews/9117323/facebook-
suppressed-right-wing-news-stories)

Facebook deleted my friend John Dickson's post, so this happens. I don't agree
with John's post, but I don't expect civil (if I feel misguided) discourse to
be deleted. I want to be able to speak to the person and state my position,
and have them clarify there's, and so on - you know, free discourse and
dissemination of ideas!

------
HillaryBriss
> When users weren’t reading stories that management viewed as important,
> several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending
> news feed anyway.

Maybe a goal here is to try to ensure that the FB community does not _appear
to outsiders_ to be a right-wing, conservative, un-cool community.

If the FB user base were seen as a collection of mainstream, or even right-of-
center, people, it would be bad for business. A lot of observers and decision-
makers in industry might spend their ad dollars somewhere else.

------
6stringmerc
> _The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were
> directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module._

Heh, not really a big surprise to me. Rule probably doesn't apply to whenever
MZ makes a big announcement though. Betting those got stuck high in the
rankings from day 1. Anyway, sounds about right for any image-protective
service, or, you know, typical state-run-media censorship.

------
api
What if it were liberal news? This is basically the filter bubble problem. All
filters have biases whether they are human or algorithmic.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This is basically the monopoly problem.

The problem isn't that FB is slanted, but that FB has a near-monopoly on user
attention, which allows its slant to be both covert and disproportionately
influential.

If FB was one of a selection of companies competing in the same space,
political bias would be less of an issue, because it would be more like the
print magazine and blog space.

But then you have the problem that the US gov has an entire network of
foundations, think-tanks, blogs, PR companies, astroturfers, bought-and-paid-
for journalists, and other "thought leaders" who exist solely to present a
specific agenda - usually a pro-corporate one.

In the same way that you can't argue with the Fed, you can't argue with a
state-organised propaganda machine - not easily, anyway.

So the problem is much wider than FB.

~~~
SFLemonade
> The problem isn't that FB is slanted, but that FB has a near-monopoly on
> user attention, which allows its slant to be both covert and
> disproportionately influential.

I couldn't agree more. They also have an unprecedented level of reach
(billions of users) and user trust (appearance of community opinion vs. news
media filtering).

> So the problem is much wider than FB.

Absolutely. Facebook is far from being the only offender here, and in a way,
this is a growing pain of new technology. Just as we learned to not trust big
media, we also will have to learn to approach social media with skepticism
(despite it's inherently organic appearance).

------
xmstr
Any news outlet or aggregator that's claims it is unbiased is probably lying.
If there are humans involved there will be bias.

------
PaulHoule
So what.

The day Bill Clinton got elected, Rush Limbaugh started counting the days of
"America Held Hostage".

Today Fox News leads every day with how there is a N _gg_ r in the White House
and we all hate Obama and everything he stands for, and it is a tragedy we
will get four years of Hillary because the Republicans are so screwed up,
and...

Right wing "thinkers" get unlimited funding from the likes of the Koch
Brothers and free copies of their books get mailed to all the public libraries
in America. Even on "liberal" CNN they regularly have panels of "conservative
thinkers", and the Economist features a "conservative thinker" who is a
Senator from Nebraska.

When they bring a "liberal" on it is always somebody who works for a campaign
or the Democratic party.

Conservatives get all the breaks but they are always bitching they aren't
treated fairly. It worked for Nixon but hasn't worked for any Republican
candidate ever since.

~~~
luso_brazilian
Part of what you said is hyperbolic or plainly not true, another part a false
equivalence and, in both cases, it greatly misses the point.

To get two points right out of the way:

1\. I completely agree that the mainstream media in the U.S. (and in most
parts of the world) is very biased and partisan.

2\. I also agree that, as private companies, both Facebook and the mainstream
media are in their complete right to proceed with their business as they see
fit, within the legality of it anyway. I don't believe whatever it is that
they do is a First Amendment (the rule forbidding the government from
suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, etc) matter although it can be a
freedom of speech (the natural right) matter.

With that out of the way the main reasoning of this post.

The great promise of the Internet in general and social media in particular is
that, maybe for the first time in history, the natural rights of freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly come together in this amazing technological
manner and, at least in principle, without the need for authorization and
without the interference of powerful third parties like the government or the
elite.

People can exchange thoughts and ideas, coordinate, and interact
instantaneously all across the globe without the need of long travel or
intermediaries relaying those messages.

There was even an implicit promise, an unrealized one when, in many of the big
public manifestations of the beginning of this decade the so called "Social
Media Revolution" helped to magnify the voice of the people in the streets, to
help them to coordinate outside the graps of their governments (that usually
have full control of both the media and the old means of communication like
landlines and mobile phones).

And these new companies (like FB, Twitter, Reddit to name a few) capitalized
on that claim too, posting themselves as bastions of freedom of speech, the
tools for people to change the world, one hashtag at a time.

Now, the damnedest thing: with each revelation like this one it becomes
apparent that "the king is dead, long live the king".

These companies, far from providing the means for people to communicate, to
freely exchange thoughts and ideas, they try to shape and mold these ideas
just like the very tools the government and the oligarchy uses to control the
people.

If it is real that Facebook does that (and there is no reason to doubt) that
betrays the people a lot more than the examples you mention. I believe people,
after all these centuries since the printing _press_ (now synonymous with
journalism) are used to the idea that it is biased, partisan and, in general
unreliable.

But when it is their very words and thoughts that are being distorted, the
ones from their friends, their neighbors, whose opinions and ideas can be
amplified or muted at will depending on whether they conform or not to the
gateway controllers agenda, that in my opinion is the ultimate betrayal by
those companies.

Assuming this and many other suspicious about their behavior is true Facebook,
Twitter, Reddit and the social media in general is betraying the people a lot
worse than the mainstream media are.

[1] The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News
Media Organizations [2010]: [http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-
social-media-re...](http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media-
revolution-exploring-the-impact-on-journalism-and-news-media-organizations)

[2] If You Doubt That Social Media Has Changed The World, Take A Look At
Ukraine [2014]: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-
dou...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-doubt-that-
social-media-has-changed-the-world-take-a-look-at-ukraine/)

[3] Welcome to the social media revolution [2012]:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662)

~~~
PaulHoule
The issue is that the right wing machine has gone so far that it has destroyed
the Republican party. There won't be a Republican party in 2022 unless they
get a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizen's United.

~~~
kisna72
I am pretty doubtful of your statement as conservative media does a pretty
good job of making people believe what the republical party wants them to
believe.

~~~
PaulHoule
That's exactly what it did. It got them to support Trump. For a long time the
party has had a fortunate synergy of "red meat" issues that constituents care
about and business interests who for some reason think that Hillary Clinton
hates Goldman Sachs (but pays her $8000 a minute to hear what she has to say.)
Note how "pro business" republicans will pay lip service to the Teslas and
Ubers of the world until the local car dealers and taxi medallion owners want
to stop them.

So much money gets thrown at anybody who passes the "litmus tests" that the
the Republican party has a field of 17 losers who all looked alike and they
were bowled over effortlessly by someone who could pick and choose from the
litmus test issues to make a message that actually sells.

If there was not so much money for conservative candidates there might have
been fewer candidates and it would have been easier for somebody serious to
get some traction. Look at how $100 million got spent on those stupid "Ted
Cruz is a flip flopper, you always know where Jeb stands, he stands in the
same place as Rhett Butler, Han Solo, and Hillary Clinton..." ads -- in the
Citizens United age, spending huge amounts of $$ just makes you look like a
jackass.

------
vox_mollis
Quite interesting that two highly-active posts on this topic have been very
rapidly removed from the frontpage.

Clearly something the community would like to discuss; clearly something HN
doesn't want discussed.

~~~
MichaelGG
Remember HN has flame detection software, so highly commented stories can
sometimes be driven down quickly. I guess you could email the mods if you
really see something amiss. But to give them more work, but at least dang
seems to be a very kind person and takes HN seriously.

HN even has show dead, so even off topic or blatantly
inflammatory/rude/racist/etc comments can still be seen.

------
thecity2
Facebook's trending news algorithm is just Soylent Green, after all?

------
mc32
Yes they are a private publicly traded company and they are within the law to
manipulate news or whatever they want with their platform in most places at
this time. However, if they were to become a clearinghouse for information I
would think eyes of scrutiny would descend and look at how they attempt to
manipulate news and opinion.

It's not clear who (in the hierarchy) is behind the decision to shape the news
nor is it clear why they would mainly suppress conservative stories over
liberal stories. Are liberal sources less prone to exaggeration? Or would they
simply upset their audience less?

Interesting never the less. And certainly this could have serious
repercussions on how news is consumed and perceived.

~~~
Shivetya
Well when your company leadership proclaims how they lean it certainly lends
direction to those who work there. As for why would the suppress, those in
power will tend to use it and many will justify it as fixing the system after
all they are the smartest people they know so how could they be wrong?

Really the media has been slanted off and on for some time and most techies
are very one sided if not blinded by altruistic claims that can never be
delivered. Its the only song and dance of "its for the children" \- who is
going to say they don't like children

------
pklausler
Perhaps Facebook was suppressing "news" items contradicted by empirical
reality, and this policy disproportionately affected conservative positions.

~~~
gunshigh
Or perhaps perception of "empirical reality" is shaped by existing biases,
causing them to be denied outright, resulting in an echo chamber that
disproportionately affected conservative positions.

~~~
popmystack
I like how there is an influx of new accounts that seem to be commenting on
this article, but no where else.

Most of the publications that were being "suppressed" are tabloid-esque in
manner. The fact that they are all conservative seems to be a problem
conservatives may want to fix.

------
krapp
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659676)

------
dba7dba
NEWS sites that filter out news to meet its own agendas? Expected.

But let's stay focused on the topic, Facebook.

~~~
SFLemonade
Absolutely. Users don't perceive Facebook as a news site. They perceive it as
a representation of their community, and as such, it is immensely more
influential. That's why this is dangerous.

------
lettergram
Interesting, just last week my friend and I were debating how much Google and
Facebook can influence an election.

We agreed it would be catastrophic if either decided to lean one way or the
other...

Facebook is essentially suppressing free speech. Although, it has somewhat a
right to do what it wants, it is skewing what other people share with one
another (which is a big deal)

~~~
morgante
How is it suppressing free speech?

It's not keeping you from posting ridiculous pro-Trump tirades. It's not even
hiding those tirades from your friends.

All it's doing is choosing not to shine a spotlight on conservative stories
which aren't corroborated by mainstream sources.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> conservative stories which aren't corroborated by mainstream sources.

Conservativism _is_ mainstream. Part of the problem is that many people who
are not conservative have been lead to believe that it is a marginal/extreme
ideology. It is not. It may be a majority ideology, but it is at a bare
minimum a the second most common.

For what it's worth I don't consider myself a conservative.

~~~
lettergram
Last I checked (can't find the stats on mobile), conservatives represented
65+% of the vote in the U.S. However, they are significantly less likely to
vote, many living in a rural area.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Last I checked (can't find the stats on mobile), conservatives represented
> 65+% of the vote in the U.S.

That's basically never been even _close_ to the case. Polling from earlier
this year had a 37%/35%/24% conservative/moderate/liberal split [1], with
"conservative" having a high since 1992 of 40%.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-
ideolog...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-
lead-thread.aspx)

------
bobwaycott
This is obviously very bad from the standpoint that the trending news section
is ostensibly supposed to be organic, based on user behavior, and free of
bias—except that which is inherent in the users themselves sharing things to
be picked up as "trending". It appears that "trending news" has really been
"curated news". Not cool at all.

More concerning than trending news actually being curated news is learning
that negative stories about Facebook were allegedly actively suppressed.
Doublenotcool at all.

However, that there is "conservative news" and "liberal news" is even more
bothersome. Especially that it's offered as something anyone should find to be
acceptable as an idea at all.

> _But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet
> that wasn’t as biased._

This is delivered as if it is inherently a bad thing, when it most assuredly
is not. When I come across a story about anything, I actively prefer to find
it covered by a neutral outlet that isn't as biased. This is, to me, a good
thing, and what news _should be_. News should be _information about events_.
If I want opinionated and editorialized news, I'd go after an opinionated and
editorialized source. They abound. That anyone who calls themselves a
journalist would call out the suppression of "conservative news" or "liberal
news", instead of calling out the elevation and coupling of inherent bias in
reporting as the problem itself, strikes me as more than worrisome.

To my thinking, there is a difference between news that is of interest to
[insert ideological group identification] and news that is delivered through
the bias of [insert ideological group identification]. I would love it if
there was a way to identify and filter news from a neutral outlet with less
(ideally no) bias. I recognize that is largely impossible, as we cannot rid
ourselves of our biases very easily. However, we can _recognize_ our biases
and seek to counterbalance them. We can also make attempts to actively omit
them from news coverage. An outlet can report on facts.

That said, it appears this story highlights _both_ : a biased suppression of
news that is of interest to conservatives and news that is delivered through
the lens of conservatively biased opinion and sources. The former is entirely
bad, as it actively omits information that a group would like to know. The
second is far less onerous to me, as I personally would love it if there were
algorithmic delivery of actual news from outlets that eschewed biased delivery
and editorializing.

Edit: It is made clear in the article that part of the problem stems from
Facebook's desire to compete with Twitter for real-time trending news. This is
unsurprising, as should the outcome be to readers and users. Facebook created
a tool to allow humans to modify news in the trending section that wasn't
organically trending. Someone thought this would be a competitive net positive
because it could allow Facebook curators to keep up with breaking news that
was "all over Twitter". That Facebook hired _curators_ , and that one or more
of those curators then divulged information about this tool being used to
subjectively inject or suppress stories seems entirely unsurprising. The tool
obviously should not exist. Creating it was a very dumb move. Not militantly
monitoring and correcting its misuse was even dumber.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Of course there is "conservative news" and "liberal news". Liberal news is
things that happened, things that will happen, etc. Conservative news is a
made up stories, things that never happened, etc.

Example of trending "conservative news": Obama bans the phrase "Merry
Christmas". E.g. [http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/barack-obama-
bans-...](http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/barack-obama-bans-entire-
military-from-saying-christmas)

~~~
542458
I think that's an overly broad and biased characterization. I find it hard to
believe that an entire half of the voting spectrum is made up of liars and
charlatans.

~~~
thrownaway2424
But it should be pretty easy to believe that half of people (at least) are
gullible. If "Obama bans Christmas" ends up as trending news because a couple
hundred far-out whackjobs clicked on it, then your mom sees that in the
trending box, and now your mom thinks that Obama banned Christmas.

~~~
bobwaycott
This seems to be a far more damning indictment of trending news than curated
news or the gullibility of people. Perhaps that is what you're getting at. I
have this nagging suspicion that people catalog information based on the
subjective believability of headlines without following through to the story,
and only click on things because they either A) don't believe the headline, or
B) find it enticing enough to want the juicy details.

"Obama bans 'Merry Christmas'" would likely get far more clicks and trend more
than "Obama said Happy Holidays yesterday". To me, the problem is in the
headline writing, coupled with silly human behaviors and algorithms. Not sure
how to solve that problem.

I think Gizmodo's headline on this story is a compelling example of what I'm
talking about. "Facebook has a tool used by curators to modify the Trending
News section" probably wouldn't get as many clicks.

------
thesimpsons1022
“Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a
story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral
outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

How awful.

~~~
werber
I always do the same thing when I'm sending an article to someone who doesn't
lean the same way politically, or when I (rarely) get preachy on my wall

------
cloudjacker
This is routine on all media sites and social networks, nothing to see here.

Also way cheaper than funding a super pac am I right

~~~
ci5er
Well, sort of. If you lean left-center, it's free. If you lean right-center,
it's unavailable. Is this "cheaper"?

------
angersock
Mmmm...yes....truly those backwards conservatives don't have any _real_ news.

/me swirls whiskey and tips fedora

Seriously, do you even recognize how condescending you sound?

~~~
pklausler
Tax cuts raise revenue!

Saddam had WMDs and participated in 9/11!

Global climate change is a myth/conspiracy!

Obamacare will lead to high unemployment!

Allowing transgendered women into ladies' rooms leads to assaults on our
wimminfolk!

The Earth is 6,020 years old and evolution is a Satanic lie!

If Facebook is keeping "news" sources with this kind of debunked, disproven,
dishonest "facts" out of my news stream, then I'm going to start spending more
time on Facebook.

~~~
gunshigh
Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video!

We're not spying on your emails!

I never sent classified information on that server!

Drone strikes only hit terrorists!

There are no secret "kill lists"!

With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors!

We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need!

The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi!

"If Facebook is keeping "news" like this, then I'm going to start spending
more time on Facebook."

~~~
pdkl95
(Remember, the point was matching "empirical reality")

> Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video!

Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and
government policy.

> We're not spying on your emails!

This one uses the NSA's word game where they claim it's only a "search" when a
human looks at it. While I suspect many regular politicians (including Obama)
don't fully understand the subject, this one should be counted as a lie.

> I never sent classified information on that server!

Hillary still might be indicted for that, though I suspect the "rich and
powerful" will trump "rule of law" as usual. It might be useful to stop
framing everything as conservative-vs-liberal, and realize that there are rich
people everywhere on the political spectrum. Their most successful strategy
was getting everyone else to fight between themselves.

As for empirical reality, I have no idea if it's true. If we're (very) lucky,
the indictment will happen and the truth will be revealed in court.

> Drone strikes only hit terrorists!

I agree that this is a lie, but it's non-partisan. Drones strikes (and similar
war crimes) started before Obama.

> There are no secret "kill lists"!

(same as above)

> With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors!

That's true. If you doctor or supplementary insurance decided to drop you
instead of meeting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, that's between
you and your doctor.

> We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need!

You plan to never use medical services?

> The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi!

I'll agree this one is a lie.

\--

To summarize, nothing is perfect, but conservatives have a much more serious
problem with reality. Most politicians play political games and dissemble to
get what they want, but it's disingenuous to claim both side are similarly
wrong. Denial of our climate problems, creationist beliefs, and claiming
revenue can be increase with tax cuts (the main source of revenue) are in
contradiction with reality in fundamental - and easily observable - ways.

~~~
ci5er
> Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and
> government policy.

Mostly agree except for that poor video-creating dude who was thrown in jail
for a year, plus or minus, as part of cover for a lie during campaign season.
Right or left - you've gotta admit that kind of sucks.

~~~
pdkl95
I forgot about that part, which does suck. Consider my "meh" a statement about
picking the right battle.

We can find abuses of power and corruption everywhere in government if we take
the time to look for it, but some problems are larger and need immediate
attention. As Londo Mollari said (B5 #3.11).

    
    
        Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir
        to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war
        on twelve fronts.
    

Once our climate problems, wealth gap, the growing police/surveillance state,
and other large problems are stabilized there will be time for these more
mundane problems in government.

------
notliketherest
Just a rant because I'm sick of the hypocrisy and double standards being
perpetrated by the media and ignoramuses and I guess Facebook too - Black
Lives matter is a racist, anarchist organization that engages in illegitimate
and illegal protests, and whoever is funding them should be investigated and
stand trial for supporting terrorist organizations.

~~~
marknutter
Found the racist

~~~
dang
Please don't react to a bad comment by making the thread worse.

~~~
marknutter
I was joking

------
jackmaney
I fail to see an actual problem with this.

------
kelukelugames
Do you believe facebook does this? It's a Gawker article.

~~~
kaendfinger
It's a Gizmodo article, unless I'm missing something.

~~~
kelukelugames
Gizmodo is part of the Gawker empire. Their writers overlap and all push for
click bait. I dislike their sites except for Deadspin because I don't mind
reading trashy sports news.

------
icomefromreddit
It seems the consensus in this thread is the justly moral superiority and the
infallibility of the left over the always faulty right.

------
HillaryBriss
FB must avoid the outward perception that its members are a collection of
right-wing cranks. That perception would be bad for business.

------
jessaustin
Is this even in the top fifty of shitty things facebook does? I ask that as
someone who has visited the site four or five times in my life. Every time has
confirmed how horrible it is. Every item about FB I see in the rest of the
media is a complaint of some sort. What is going on?

------
deleterious
Since 99% of "conservative" news is manufactured by corporate America, then
manipulated, packaged, (Often repackaged.) and presented by Faux News, I'm
actually okay with this. It may be supporters of Drumph and company learn the
hard way just how almost everything we enjoy as Americans is very much at
jeopardy because of Corporate America pushing their agenda and only their
agenda through their media outlets. In other words, enjoy your market and real
news manipulations. Drumph supporters if successful will earn it!

~~~
simonsinnehll
You couldn't be more wrong. If you actually cared and didn't choose your
political view based on what'll look the best in a hashtag under your selfie,
you'd quickly find out that ALL liberal politics are sponsored by
multinational global corporations. Modern day conservatives are all about
small business, small government and financial freedom.

~~~
popmystack
You people have lost the plot, truly.

