Posted on 10/24/2021 8:42:56 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
There’s a new report out about Facebook bias, and it’s not a good one for conservative outlets.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Facebook employees have consistently tried to suppress or de-platform outlets on the right, despite objections by managers who don’t want the political fallout. The WSJ allegedly saw internal discussions on a message board that the employees used.
According to the report, Breitbart News was a particular target that the employees wanted to remove from the News Tab function, claiming that it had drops in trust. But a senior researcher responded that if they judged outlets on that basis, they’d have to take down big news media outlets as well. “I can also tell you that we saw drops in trust in CNN 2 years ago: would we take the same approach for them too?” the researcher wrote.
The report said that after the fact-checking system came in, with things being adjudged false by third-party fact-checkers, which would then earn “strikes,” there was more action against conservative outlets.
This has been a concern of outlets on the right for some time about the new moves and the “strikes.” So, this adds fire to those concerns, if there were employees actually acting this way behind the scenes.
New scoops are reportedly coming this week with more bombshell information.
Nick Clegg, the vice president of global affairs for Facebook, told workers that “we need to steel ourselves for more bad headlines in the coming days, I’m afraid,” in a Saturday memo obtained by Axios.
The new scoops were expected to come Monday from a number of news outlets that were given leaked material by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen but an embargo on the information collapsed Friday and more devastating reporting on the company’s internal workings could be released any time.
The story that broke the embargo on Friday involved a new whistleblower who told the Securities and Exchange Commission that Facebook routinely dismissed concerns about hate speech and the spread of misinformation over fears it would hinder the company’s growth.
We’ve written before on concerns about the possible ulterior motives with France Haugen.
Meanwhile, Texas passed a law to prohibit Facebook, Twitter and Google from removing conservative viewpoints, and they were sued in response by the companies. Now a federal district court has ruled allowing Texas to get limited discovery from the companies on how they moderate content. That means that they could see, effectively, how they are making those judgements and for what reason they are suppressing to censor people/groups.
Texas passed a law prohibiting Facebook, Twitter & Google from removing conservative viewpoints.
They sued us.
Now, a federal judge will let Texas seek internal documents about how they moderate content.
It's about to get interesting.https://t.co/zYzf9HYqz8 via @technology
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 23, 2021
Things could get very interesting with what that reveals.
But Democrats want Facebook to crack down still more, as Democratic operative Ben Rhodes reveals.
Facebook is an existential danger to democracy and a global public safety hazard. Like previous products that endanger people, it necessitates aggressive government action with strong enforcement. https://t.co/bdCd2P5ci3
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) October 23, 2021
They figure the more they scream, like he does there, the more Facebook will be forced to comply with what they want to control on content.
Nothing new
Tried Babalouie?
They also need to have their Section 230 liability exemption removed because their actions make them a content creator, not just a content carrier.
Peruse later.
Wow....no kidding, WSJ??
And, you’re just now reporting on this?
🙃
[[Wall Street Journal Report: Facebook Employees Tried to Suppress Conservative Content]]
My aren’t they the observant ones? What are they gonna tell us next? That the MSM is biased?
That....and, that the election was stolen and FRAUDci is a fraud?
They must have hired Capt Obvious.
The height of political comedy for me was when I posted political satire on Facebook and they flagged it as “partly false”.
BTW, I only have four facebook friends, including my wife. I posted it there as a sort of “archive”, allowing me to C&P to paste in on forums all over the internet.
Facebook is amateur hour when it comes to this nonsense.
Sounds like a right-wing conspiracy theory!!! /s
h/t SC DOC
You get it for free but the quality sucks. You have no say in how it works. The guy who runs it gets rich. There's no real competition. You have no privacy. And if you say one thing they don't like they'll shut you up. |
If you'd like to be on or off this list, please click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.
I’m shocked.
B-but...there were two whistleblowers saying that Facebook was an evil right-wing cabal...
“What are they gonna tell us next? That the MSM is biased?”
You must be a conspiracy theory nut. The only bias is on FNC./s
HOW CRIPPLED WOULD OUR COUNTRY HAVE BEEN IF ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL NLY SOLD PHONES TO DEMOCRATS?
AND IF HE LISTENED IN ON CONVERSATIONS?
“Mark Zuckerberg and the executives at Facebook need to be charged and fined for every penny of such illegal political campaign contributions-in-kind because that’s exactly what such censorship is.”
Exactly, but you’ll have to get Rand Paul on board first, as he thinks it’s JUST FINE when ‘private companies’ censor, as long as it’s not the government doing it directly (in other words, China’s approach is fine with Rand). I also think it was him and maybe a few others that PROTECTED Section 230...out of ‘principle’.
Interesting logo.... thanks ....always find the thread informative...
https://archive.md/wd55e
<>https://tinyurl.com/t2ueud32fac
I keep asking myself why Christian churches have a FakeBook page and repeatedly tout their presence on that social media platform?
Im sorry but I think you are miscatorgizing the Senator from Kentucky.
Rand Paul general rule if it is not specified in the US Constitution that the federal role is hands off. In general there is no laws specifically addressing large institutions forcing pollical content on their user group because the market should see that as a liability and punish that platforms stock price. It is the tone def advertisers who continue to support the a platform that are the problem, guess facebook advertising still moves the needle. But like myspace, facebook will be a thing until it isnt.
Its already baked into the cake....
“Most young adults perceive Facebook as a place for people in their 40s and 50s,” a March presentation from a team of data scientists said, according to The Verge. “Young adults perceive content as boring, misleading, and negative. They often have to get past irrelevant content to get to what matters.”
Or maybe Rand thinks we’re INDESTRUCTIBLE and therefore we can allow the Left to take over institution after institution, including voting (in this case), and, unlike the other 99% of countries where that happens, we’ll be just fine. And given that, then yes, there is no risk in being an idealist.
I guess that’s where I differ from him.
Nope, just a plain nut
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.