Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Facebook Communications Government Network Networking Republicans Social Networks The Internet Politics News

Mark Zuckerberg: 'No Evidence' Facebook Staff Suppressed Stories With Conservative Viewpoints (theverge.com) 346

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg has issued a statement in response to the controversy alleging that Facebook staff intentionally prevented stories with a conservative viewpoint from appearing in the site's Trending Topics section. "We take this report very seriously and are conducting a full investigation to ensure our teams upheld the integrity of this product," Zuckerberg writes on Facebook. "We have found no evidence that this report is true. If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it." Zuckerberg says he will invite "leading conservatives and people from across the political spectrum" to discuss the matter in the coming weeks, with the aim of having a "direct conversation about what Facebook stands for and how we can be sure our platform stays as open as possible." Earlier today, more evidence surfaced to support Gawker's two recent reports that claimed editors manipulate the trending news. Facebook published a blog post explaining how Trending Topics on its platform works, insisting there's no discrimination against sources of any political origin.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg: 'No Evidence' Facebook Staff Suppressed Stories With Conservative Viewpoints

Comments Filter:
  • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Thursday May 12, 2016 @10:33PM (#52102479)

    "We have found no evidence that this report is true" may be the contrapositive of we have found evidence it is false but it's not the same thing

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12, 2016 @10:50PM (#52102531)

      They investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 )

      So what? Again a non-fucking story. He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.

      The GOP wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine in broadcast mediums if they want this fixed. Course that's a double edge sword that results in people getting both sides of every story and THAT would mean the end of the GOP. The entire party and it's doctrine relies on people being misinformed by an echo chamber constantly reinforcing the same idea over and over until the consumers believe

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You know what's funny?

        When's the last time you saw a headline like "so and so suppressed Liberal/Progressive viewpoints"? Or "IRS directed to target outspoken Liberal/Progressive organizations"? Yeah, neither have I. It's always the Conservative viewpoints targeted by censorship or intimidation of some kind. Those are techniques people use when they are not secure in their own views and feel threatened by opposing views.

        Why it's as if one side plays dirtier than the other. Must be the same reason that

        • hey fox news has Colmes.

        • Or "IRS directed to target outspoken Liberal/Progressive organizations"?

          That actually happened. The IRS even confirmed it.

          • by bigfinger76 ( 2923613 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @12:20AM (#52102757)
            The IRS targeted conservative groups, not liberal ones.
            IRS Targeting Controversy [wikipedia.org]
            • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2016 @02:09AM (#52102999)

              If you are going to post a link to support your argument, you may want to make sure it actually supports your argument. That Wikipedia articles says it targeted both liberal and conservative non-profit corporations looking for violations of the laws governing non-profits.

              • by jmac_the_man ( 1612215 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @08:36AM (#52104171)
                Regardless of what some dickhead wrote on Wikipedia, that's not what happened. Existing tax exempt liberal groups were investigated for violations of law, and either cleared or charged at the end of the investigation. Newly-formed conservative groups were subjected to "investigation" which were designed to be onerous and unending, thus preventing them from getting tax exemption in the first place. The conservative groups were "suspected of" being prone to violate laws WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and thus were no longer in force.

                Lumping the two together is a red herring used by the IRS and its liberal defenders to cover up the fact that the Obama Administration used the machinery of government to harass their political opponents.

              • by harrkev ( 623093 )

                That Wikipedia articles says it targeted both liberal and conservative non-profit corporations

                From the Wikipedia article:

                Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status, and received no response after waiting 16 months. When the organization's founder, Drew Ryun, applied for permanent tax-exempt status for an existing tax-exempt organization with what he said was a "liberal-sounding name" ("Greenhouse Solutions"), that application was approved in three we

      • by mellon ( 7048 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @12:08AM (#52102733) Homepage

        It would be the salvation of the GOP. The GOP was actually a useful party back when we had the fairness doctrine. Bunch of stuffed shirts, but they got shit done and cooperated with Democrats.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          The GOP was actually a useful party back when we had the fairness doctrine...they got shit done and cooperated with Democrats

          Indeed. They now have a conspiratorial narrative whereby Democrats are plotting to take away their guns and Christmas trees, while Obamacare doctors turn their kids gay by vaccinating them with secret Sharia sauce.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2016 @06:35AM (#52103581)

            And Chelsey Clinton is giving speeches about how her mother will finally outlaw guns now that Scalia is dead and there is an opening on the Supreme Court.

            I don't think you can call it a conspiracy if they are telling people that is their plan.
            Video [freebeacon.com] Feel free to ignore the news article with it, just watch the video.

        • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @01:20AM (#52102917)

          Bunch of stuffed shirts, but they got shit done and cooperated with Democrats.

          Do you mean when they cooperated, and ran up $18 trillion in debt? Or when they cooperated and launched the dumbest war in history, with bipartisan support? I think I prefer gridlock.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        "He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law."

        Perhaps not. Suppose someone offers you a deal where you agree to read the advertisements he promotes, and in return you get to see the most popular stories from everyone in his group. Suppose you agree to that deal. Then, if you read the advertisements, but he only offers you the most popular liberal stories, then he's in breach of contract.

        I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that it may be more than merel

        • There are no contracts involved here, not between the users and Facebook. It's not a trade of ad-views for specified content; it's just a package of content and ads offered for free.

      • Uh. You might want to go back and re-read some stuff...like facts. It's the democrats who liked the fairness doctrine, and it was them most recently who tried to get it back in [nbcnews.com] several times in fact. I picked [time.com] two left-leaning sources. So have some right leaning [townhall.com] sources as well. [foxnews.com] The GOP has been fundamentally against that.

        One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS. [archive.is]

      • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @01:26AM (#52102929)

        Actually, there can be multilateral sides to a story. A 'fairness' doctrine would not be any friendlier to the truth because the truth is usually not 'fair.' Also, the GOP does not have a monopoly on echo chambers and hugboxes. Your post is proof of that.

      • by fey000 ( 1374173 )

        You make it sound like a bad thing. I would welcome any form of fairness doctrine regardless of how it affects the political situation. The end result can only be positive for the voters, short-term and long.

      • You're (knowingly, of course) fighting a straw man, here. The GOP doesn't want it "fixed," they simply want them not to lie about it. The last thing anyone needs is the unconstitutional "fairness doctrine" back in the role of government control over speech.
      • So what? Again a non-fucking story. He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.

        You're right, it's his site and he can do with it what he wants. However, if he's going to make public pronouncements regarding its neutrality and objectivity, he needs to live up to that. At a minimum the processes involved should be public and completely transparent so that users can decide how much they want to trust what FB is doing. By the way, your argument needs more "fuck"s to really sound intelligent.

      • by jmac_the_man ( 1612215 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @09:12AM (#52104449)

        He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law.

        You're correct on this point, although the rest of post is bullshit.

        Statistically speaking, all conservatives realize that CBS, NBC, and ABC are biased against conservatives and Republicans at least 90% of the time. Also statistically speaking, no conservative wants some kind of government mandate for them to cut it out. They're private businesses and can do what they want. (PBS and NPR are different because they're taxpayer funded.)

        Facebook is also a private business and also shouldn't be mandated by the government to change how Trending Topics work. The reason the story is important is because people need to know that Trending Topics are full of shit in the same way the network news is.

    • by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) on Thursday May 12, 2016 @11:07PM (#52102575)

      Yes, Prime Minister: https://youtu.be/vKer_nMOIZ8?t... [youtu.be]

      PM: I told them that I hadn't found any evidence
      Bernard: That's because you haven't been looking
      Sir Humphry: And we haven't shown you any
      PM: Yes, well done!

    • by mellon ( 7048 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @12:07AM (#52102729) Homepage

      I have plenty of evidence that the report is false, in the form of people bloviating on my timeline.

    • This is non-denial denial: "we cannot confirm that report is true".
    • It's not actually the contrapositive. Contrapositives are equivalent to each other. Also, they only apply to conditionals, and there are no conditionals here, so that statement has no contrapositive.

    • by fey000 ( 1374173 )

      "We found the evidence, we set it on fire, and now we can't find any evidence that this report is true. Rest assured that we will not stop until we can no longer find any evidence that this was ever true".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12, 2016 @10:36PM (#52102489)

    "There's not a smidgen of evidence that (FB suppressed conservative stories|the IRS targeted conservative groups|Hillary Clinton leaked classified information to the Russians and Chinese through her insecure email server). We made sure to delete it all."

  • by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Thursday May 12, 2016 @10:54PM (#52102537) Homepage

    Maybe the Facebook news team didn't suppress any conservative stories. Maybe they just elevated other stories over all others. The effect may have been the same, but if that is the case he's technically not lying.

    Not that equivocation of that level is commendable. Quite the opposite actually.

  • He is.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ExXter ( 1361251 )
    a big liar. I know, being directly involved in an investigation against the German government and a process of censorship across Germany for all posts which are not aligned with German governmental thinking and political correctness that Facebook not just directly collaborates with the German government but also complies with their injustice and unjust requests to censor all posts which the government in Germany doesn't want nor allow. Topics which are censored are majorly involved in uncovering lies above
    • by dave420 ( 699308 )

      If you have actual evidence, and can stop making ridiculous generalisations which tar the vast majority of refugees who are innocent of any "scheming", you can say what you want. If your argument is based on unsubstantiated nonsense, expect your argument to be destroyed, as it wasn't even an argument to begin with.

      The fact you made a whole bunch of claims and logical absurdities while summarising your argument doesn't show you're on a particularly sound footing, and you should expect everything you get if

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

      Topics which are censored are majorly involved in uncovering lies above lies in regard to the refugees scheming currently shacking all of Europe and the Muslim thread that it involves.

      What does this mean? Can't figure it out.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Thursday May 12, 2016 @11:03PM (#52102559) Journal
    Zuckerberg's 'principles' involve stealing passwords and reading other people's email [businessinsider.com].
    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      Yes, because we all know that something someone does at university shapes their entire existence until the end of time.

      I got really drunk and threw up in a graveyard when I was 17, but I sure as hell have never, nor will ever again do this. It's not like that one incident means I've become a serial graveyard defiler. There's a big difference between the irresponsibility of what people do when they're young and how they act as they get older.

      Frankly, if you didn't engage in anything like that as a teenager t

      • I would agree with you if there were any indication that he's changed. AFAICT he's still the same guy.
        • by Xest ( 935314 )

          Is there evidence he's hacked into anyone elses account since, or are you basing that judgement entirely on unfounded speculation?

          I'm not much a fan of Zuckerberg, but I'm even less a fan of unfounded assumption. I think when it's implied that something is wrong without evidence is detracts from legitimate discussion about things that are actually wrong. If enough wrong accusations are thrown at him he can hide behind those false accusations with dismissal of them to evade legitimate concern about real actu

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )

          Stick to facts, unless you want to look like someone with an agenda other than "learning the truth".

  • by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Thursday May 12, 2016 @11:12PM (#52102583) Homepage Journal
    Facebook is a private website. They are free to post whatever they like. Why would it matter if stories of a particular political alignment are less likely than others to show up? There is no shortage of other places where you can get news, either...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12, 2016 @11:36PM (#52102653)

      It matters because they claimed that "trending" was determined by computer algorithms that analyzed what people were actually talking about, but that turned out to be a lie: they were instead determined by people, who necessarily have a bias.

      It matters because it artificially shapes how people see the world. Facebook isn't just "a news site" it's also a site that - in theory - shows you how your friends view the world. Except it turns out that conservative views were being censored on Facebook.

      They're not alone. Anyone who's seen how Twitter deals with its trends (which are also conceptually algorithmic but in reality are clearly curated as they'll block certain things from trending) and the new Twitter Moments feature will notice a distinct liberal bias there, as well.

      If Facebook were like Slashdot where the entire point was people were explicitly picking certain stories, no one would care. But Facebook pretended that the "trending" feature was showing what people were actually talking about on Facebook, and that turned out to be false. It was instead a curated news feed with a liberal bias.

    • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @05:14AM (#52103299)

      Microsoft bundling IE in its capacity as the by far dominant provider of desktop operating systems was considered an anti-trust violation.

      Now what about the by far most dominant social network bundling a particular political platform for its users? Is there no ethical problem with that?

      I agree that FB's actions are legal and even constitutionally protected. But if you find it unnerving when companies hire lobbyists to write laws in their favor, you should probably find it even more unnerving that FB may be surreptitiously packaging the specific issues and views on which people vote.

      I wonder what the monetary value to Trump/Hillary would be to suppressing news helpful to their opponent, and what sort of favorable legislation that could buy FB in return.

      • Now what about the by far most dominant social network bundling a particular political platform for its users?

        I don't disagree with the assertion that they are the top "social networking" site on the web today. However as a news source I don't see them as being anywhere near dominant. I certainly haven't heard of Fox News, CNN, or any print newspapers declaring "we can't compete with facebook for news, so we're going to shut our operation down".

        But if you find it unnerving when companies hire lobbyists to write laws in their favor, you should probably find it even more unnerving that FB may be surreptitiously packaging the specific issues and views on which people vote.

        I don't dispute that corporate America is running Washington a little more with every passing day. IMHO the "Affordable Care Act" was the largest corporate handout from

    • Would you feel the same if Google biased its results to make Trump look good?

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        No, but that's different. That would require Google to make up stories because there aren't any stories that make Trump look good. Facebook isn't accused of making up stories, just possibly suppressing stories.

  • by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Thursday May 12, 2016 @11:23PM (#52102609)

    The lying weasel actually came out and said it in plain words:

    If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it."

    Conservatism is against their principles and they are addressing it.

  • ...so what. It's a social media website, and a private company -- that doesn't make any claims about being "Fair and Balanced". There's also a big difference between actively suppressing something and showing preference to something that might garner more clicks (and revenue).

    Most of my feeds are usually drivel anyway, 'pseudo celeb x does something silly/shocking/dumb'. There's also the old 'x' icon you can click to stop getting feeds on certain things.

    And anyway, if you're getting most of your news from F

    • by Jiro ( 131519 )

      If you show preference to something, that means you must reduce the prominence of something else in order to show preference to it.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • BS 102 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday May 13, 2016 @12:31AM (#52102785) Journal

    Zuck doesn't quite know how to bullshit properly.

    The BSC* answer is, "We found no specific evidence of politically-biased re-ranking of stories. However, we did discover that the ranking process was not carefully managed and monitored enough, and are now putting in place procedures and cross-checks to prevent any future bias".

    In short, it blames any problems later discovered on rogue underlings who were not watched well enough.

    I don't claim to be an intentional expert on bullshit, I just witnessed too much over the years in Dilbertville, often as the underling scapegoat.

    * Bullshit-Correct

  • That will result in only a few minor political edits over a million billion pieces of news that will be internally sanctioned. This is my USD 5.- bet. Anyone?
  • He's openly lobbying for given political positions that conflict with other people that are saying he is suppressing them. His statement of evidence merely means "HE" has said there is no suppression. But if there is suppression he would have a strong interest to lie about it. And what is more, he also has a motive to do it in the first place.

    He saying at any given point... "oh I'm not doing it" doesn't really matter.

  • Oh boohoo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mvdwege ( 243851 ) <mvdwege@mail.com> on Friday May 13, 2016 @02:35AM (#52103059) Homepage Journal

    For decades now the single largest block of media is controlled by a reactionary billionaire, and any attempt by non-reactionaries to point out that this may not be healthy for political discourse is shouted down or outright not reported on.

    But God forbid a market party tries to use its freedom to present the news and not be a flaming reactionary; it will be plastered all over the media as a scandal.

    Fuck you, you fucking reactionary shits. You made your bed of biased media, now lie in it and STFU.

  • by Salgak1 ( 20136 ) <salgak AT speakeasy DOT net> on Friday May 13, 2016 @06:28AM (#52103553) Homepage

    . . . .which is no defender of the Right (as it prides itself as Progressive), the argument of objectivity and algorithms pretty much fails.

    To wit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]

  • I believe him. I saw it in the Trending Topics box so it has to be true.
  • I see plenty of conspiracy theories, posts from Trump-supporting imbeciles, people praising for the GOP supporting "family values" (until the womb is breached at which point these same morons agree with the GOP in lock-step and say "f--- the poor"), uneducated nitwits who think socialism and soviet communism are the exact same thing (when in truth unregulated "free market" capitalism is more like soviet communism when you reach its end game), insane anti-vaxxing conspiracy theories, and other things that yo

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...