Facebook downplayed conservative news, says former worker


Facebook workers often excluded conservative news topics from the site’s trending news section, Gizmodo reported Monday.

The technology site interviewed several former curators for the site’s news section, one of whom said that he noticed popular conservative topics were left off the homepage list.

Gizmodo published a story last week detailing the conditions behind the trending news team, which is required to write headlines and summaries for dozens of news stories to be included on the website’s ticker. The workers, who were contracted, were told to omit news about Facebook itself, though Facebook did not have an explicit policy to remove right-leaning topics from the section.

Read more here: charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article76497982.html#storylink=cpy


Facebook is a private company they can display and edit there web site anyway they please. :confused::eek:


I’m not surprised. I’ve reported a lot of vile anti-Catholic stuff on Facebook only to be told that it doesn’t violate their terms of service. :frowning:


I’m sure there are former employees of ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times and other such “stalwart” news agencies that feel the same way about their former employers, but they keep their mouths closed to keep working in the industry.

It’s certainly not a secret that US news agencies tend to stifle conservative thinking.


Of course, but I don’t think anyone is saying they should be forced to show certain news.

However, the mass public doesn’t know that this is happening, and never questions the stories they see (or don’t see). Facebook could decide the entire election themselves through this strategy.


Please provide any evidence for this assertion?


This is only anecdotal. Before Obama’s first term, at least half of the ads I saw on the side of Facebook had something to do with Obama. They were questions about him, little dancing figures, that sort of thing. It really made me wonder; now I have a better idea of why this was so.


You are more correct than you realize,

As I hinted at in my first post on this blog, for anyone wanting to really screw with the US government, it would be men like Timothy McVeigh, who are attracted to material like the Turner Diaries, who form a base of people capable of engaging in terrorist attacks on the US government. While the first inclination no doubt would be for a hostile foreign power to reach out to Black Nationalists or communists,** it is in my view**, and the view of Sakai, that this would be an error. It is an understandable error, given the history of the United States, to assume that the US government ultimately represents the White Nation and its most fascistic elements. But this is not true, which is why there are thousands of white men like Timothy McVeigh in the United States, who have a deep, deep hatred of the US government.

How this radioactive element of the US population is contained is a story that is not told very often. Reading works like the Turner Diaries could give you a clue, but let me spell it out for the reader: the job of the mainstream ‘Right’ is to fool these people into thinking they have their interests at heart. This is why the term Cuckservative has gained some traction recently, even making it into the mainstream press. The mainstream ‘Right’ press openly discusses this problem, because they know the spreading of this particular meme speaks of the radioactive element of the US population leaking out of its container.


(I found that website by typing in “Grover Furr” and “Marcus Garvey” in a search engine, not because I was looking for commentary on the Turner Diaries as I looking for the former’s insights on “black nationalism” as he had written about Afrocentrism before.)

Emphasis mine. The first bolded portion shows the counterintuitive conclusion that far-right whites have the best potential for overthrowing the US government or engaging in an insurgency, perhaps because they outnumber communists and have stronger resentment than blacks. The second simply says that one important part of the mainstream right is to contain the far-right element.

I also believe that this give credence to the Marxist thesis that fascism is just the most reactionary incarnation of capitalism. It is embraced during a time of crisis when it is advantageous to the economic elite when yielding to the radical left would resulting in giving up much of their income and assets. The socially conservative and reactionary values of the far-right fuels a virulent hatred of leftist in general, as they are perceived as advocating degeneracy, decadence, and corruption (whose grievances include disgust towards racial mixing, sexual liberalism, the presence of invasive foreigners, religious ecumenicalism etc.) that would ultimately undermine the moral fabric of society, its social order and institutions. This type of hatred is advantageous during times of crisis since it forms a corp of people who would fervently fight to preserve that status quo while being contemptuous those who advocate the revolution or reforms that endanger the assets of the economic elite.
, but those elements need to be contained during times of relative tranquility.




So…the employees were not told to remove right-leaning topics from the section…but one employee–a “self-identified conservative”–says he *noticed *that popular conservative stories were not included in the trending news section.

That’s it?



It’s not just one curator saying about alleged bias:

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “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. “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.”



I am not surprised by this. It seems like many corporations in the United States are leaning to the left.


Actually we have left and right leaning business. Why is the left leaning no big deal and the right leaning liable for lawsuits, condemnation and protest? Did you want examples? :slight_smile:

Thats called the principle of un equal rights in the USA. :wink:


The advertisements are paid for by private parties. :eek:


Facebook is well within their rights influence news stories on their website, right? They aren’t bound by law to be unbiased…

Lord have mercy on you if you get your news from Facebook in the first place.


Oh no doubt, many people DO get their news today from social media and while they-FB certainly may post as they please being within their rights, its not really the position they desire to be in with free speech either. Which I suppose is why the story has been denied. That said several employees have come forth confirming the suppression of various conservative stories. Thats said most people I know or even here really don’t rely on FB for news. But I think its a wake up call to the reality of its liberal leaning more than anything. I have seen posts removed from various people in particular in relation to Islam also. So yeah they do monitor as they please. :shrug:



from WIRED:

Of Course Facebook Is Biased. That’s How Tech Works Today

In doing so, these companies have started acting overtly like traditional publishers. But in effect they’ve always been in the publishing business (see also Google News). Though they may be more comfortable identifying as platforms, seemingly neutral utilities closer to e-mail or the telephone than The New York Times, editorial judgment is built into what the biggest tech companies do. Forget about Trending Topics: the act of enforcing—or choosing not to enforce—any kind of standards at all is an editorial decision. Algorithms themselves act as a reflection of their creators’ judgment in the search results they generate and the News Feed items they surface, automating the act of editorial decision-making. The Trending Topics controversy isn’t an anomaly; deciding what does and doesn’t get attention online is at the core of what these companies do. And as any editor knows, making these calls becomes especially fraught during a contentious election year.

As tech companies become central to the dissemination of news, the biases of their leaders become subject to greater scrutiny, as they would with any publisher. And it’s a simple fact that San Francisco and Silicon Valley just tend to lean left. Apple CEO Tim Cook was on the front lines of the fight for marriage equality. More recently, PayPal pulled the plug on its plans to open a new operation in North Carolina after the state passed its controversial anti-transgender “bathroom bill.”
Tech companies are no longer novelties in the worlds of news and politics.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.