At least for Facebook it’s actually the opposite. FB’s UX flow and design works better for conservative media.
From a political perspective, there are a billion stories about how FB leadership actively reaches out to conservative media to try and keep the platform friendly to them (including things like allowing the Daily Caller to be a “fact checker” on their platform). Many stories of “oh this feature to prevent trending of outright false shit would flag half of conservative media. Let’s not”
The naive reading is they are afraid of conservative backlash. But I’m personally a bit done with giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think they are actively courting conservatives (sacrificing only the tiniest slice of the far right on certain high profile bans)
It depends on what you consider anti-conservative. I've had a few friends mention that any links to something regarding "Benfords Law" (some forensic tool used for flagging potential fraud) gets an immediate "disputed" label.
My guess is that algorithmic checks are flagging posts and conservatives are interpreting that as censorship.
Sad to see downvotes here but the Benford's law thing is absolutely one of the weakest claims of fraud finding. It sounds good initially (tool for finding some kinds of fraud used to find other kinds of fraud) but it is almost entirely flawed with how it is used in this context. It truly is the best current example of statistics lying.
If you've seen the handy little graph of the first digit statistics that each candidate got in big cities, I dug into this a bit but the basic summary is precinct sizes aren't random at all and that messes up the entire premise of that analysis. I made a quick repo that altered the initial repo to show things like how just getting 70% of the vote would screw up benfords law in most counties [0].
Asserting that Benford's Law can be used to identify election fraud is a disputed, or just downright misleading, claim. Academic research has shown Benford's Law is not applicable to election tallies. (Also so does common sense when you think about it.)
No one said identify fraud, I said flag potential fraud.
There are some people who think it's a useful heuristic for uncovering potential oddities. Academics may not think so, but perhaps people who are professional analysts do.
Ultimately it comes down to who's side you want to take, and whether that's going to result in something akin to censorship.
Also, part of the reason I don't like commenting on any remotely political HN posts is that you get downvotes for saying perfectly reasonable things.
Just take a look at the 10 top-performing link posts on Facebook each day. It's almost universally right to far-right leaning content. Whoever is perpetrating this anti-conservative bias must be spectacularly bad at their job. On the other hand, conservative victimhood appears to be a winning message in this political cycle.
We've banned this (along with some other accounts) for using HN for political and ideological battle. That's against the rules, regardless of which politics you favor or disfavor. We're trying for a different sort of site. Also, please don't use multiple accounts to do this. That's also not cool and will eventually get your main account banned as well.
His tweets get hidden because they contain false claims about the election and thinly-veiled calls for violence, not because they present a conservative viewpoint. We're talking about Trump here, not George Will.
