Posted on 05/19/2016 5:12:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
There’s a lot of pearl clutching on the political right this week, so much so you’d be hard-pressed to differentiate it from the constant pearl clutching on the left. Facebook, it is alleged, “censors” conservative news. But does it really? And does it matter?
There are not many people in the United States younger than 50 who don’t have a Facebook account. Exactly none of them were forced to open one. When they did they accepted the fact that they were playing in someone else’s backyard.
Facebook owes the government no justification as to how it conducts its business as long as it is legal. And no one is alleging Facebook’s supposed activity is illegal. Unseemly, yes, but not against the law. It owes users even less.
Facebook, of course, denies the allegations. But what does it matter, and who cares if it is true? If you thought Facebook, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg backing and funding left-wing causes, was neutral ground, you’ve been lying to yourself. That’s not Facebook’s fault; that’s yours.
Facebook is accused of manipulating its “trending” section, which purports to show which stories are being talked about most on the social network. Frankly, I didn’t even know it was there until this story broke.
It’s small, underneath many other things and contains nothing to catch the eye of a user. To be honest, in a page full of pictures, videos, and names of people you know, it’s boring.
Sure, some people click the links. But this doesn’t drive conversations or affect the zeitgeist, and anyone who thinks otherwise is according Facebook way too much power.
And even then, so what? Facebook is not your website. You’re playing on someone else’s property. That Facebook lets you do so free of charge does not obligate it to you. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
When you set up your account you voluntarily surrendered a lot of personal information and clicked “OK” to a user agreement we all know you didn’t read. That personal information, coupled with every post you or your friends make and every link you click on feeds Facebook more information about you than your friends probably have on you.
Facebook uses that information you’ve voluntarily turned over to target paid ads to you. That’s the deal; the price of “free.” We all know it, we all accept it. Why should anything on the section of that page it reserves for itself be any different?
The “trending” section isn’t ads; it’s news. But there’s really no difference. They choose which ads you see and the companies from which they accept ads. If they decide they’ll accept ads only from Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton, that’s all you’ll see. You can choose not to click on them, but it’s up to Facebook whether you see them because you're playing in their backyard where they set the rules.
So why get upset a liberal company in a liberal industry headed by a liberal might have a liberal bias? It’s like being surprised water is wet.
That Facebook denies it doesn’t make it untrue. But it’s not malicious either way. A liberal bias conforms with the world view of the people charged with populating the section, just like a conservative bias colors the world view of many of the websites you most likely visit. It’s unclear why Facebook was expected to be immune from what infects everyone else.
Many conservatives have feigned outrage over this revelation, crying as though they have some infringed-upon right to something they don’t – equal access to someone else’s property.
To quell the storm, Zuckerberg has convened a meeting with conservatives, most of whom have nothing to do with journalism. Radio hosts, TV pundits, campaigns – the loudest voices of a pearl-clutching chorus demanding redress of their supposed grievances – got their audience. But they’re not aggrieved. They’re just seeking attention. Which was why they clutched their pearls in the first place.
Having self-appointed representatives of conservatism elevating themselves to a status demanding a meeting was bad enough, but when Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., started demanding answers, that crossed the line. Both groups are acting like progressives, using indignation as a weapon.
Facebook owes you nothing, and you owe nothing to Facebook. If your only or main source of news is an obscure feature on a social media website, you deserve the perverted worldview you get – just like if you get your news only from conservative or liberal sources. Rather than expressing anger that an obscure section of a social media website might not have been giving you an unvarnished view of the world, maybe you should ask yourself why you're expecting to find it there in the first place.
exactly
Not many people under 50? I don’t know the exact demographics, but Facebook is the new MySpace. The younger crowd isn’t even into Twitter that much anymore. It’s mainly Insty and SnapChat. My mom, mother-in-law, and their friends are all about Facebook.
Breaking News on this site leans right.
Agreed. Good post. BTW, I *don’t* have a Facebook account, secondary to most of the reasons listed above. Schmuckerberg can waste someone else’s time.
Having experienced FB censoring first hand yes they do censor pro-conservative viewpoints or anti-muslim articles that were based on truth.
Nobody is compelled to use Fakebook, and to do so, is only to open no further than you wish to reveal.
+1
I agree. I was simply pointing out that the cool kids aren’t using it anymore.
So true. I enjoy FB, especially since I’ve been housebound quite a bit lately.
It’s for personal use only and I do not use it to post any political stance good or bad.
It’s a place to share pics and general life updates with friends. It takes some self control, because I’d love to share certain political findings. But, I don’t. Honestly, I wish more people would leave politics off FB.
As a publicly traded company Facebook, and Zuckerberg, are ultimately answerable to shareholders.
Very true. Facebook is used by the ‘parents’. Teens and young adults still have accounts, but hardly use them. They use Instagram and Snapchat.
It’s true, but the point about acting like Progressives and using indignation as a weapon is especially pertinent.
Indignation is a VERY useful and powerful weapon. As Progressives have demonstrated over the past few generations. Why shouldn’t it be used by Conservatives? Is the refusal to use it, on the basis that Conservatives don’t stoop to using Progressive tactics, unilateral disarmament?
“Facebook is the new MySpace”
which was the new AOL, which was the new CompuServe, which was the new BBS. Younger users have moved on past Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and are staying into something else.
I’ve been on digital social media for decades. Every major site is world-changing, everyone is on it, it’s the one big thing always and ever, it defines the country and culture, it’s wonderful, it’s subversive evil, it’s gone and forgotten.
It’s not just cool kids , it’s pretty much most kids and young adults. The parents took over FB.
65 year old baby boomers are all over facebook. Under 30’s? Not so much.
Facebook and Google are leftist propaganda outlets, which is fine until they argue that they aren’t. And then it’s just ridiculous.
Absolutely correct. My kids are 17-20. They never had facebook. When we gave them the option to setup accounts at age 13 or so, they weren’t interested in the least.
Snapchat and Instagram.
The person has a great point.
Facebook should admit that do slant it, but that’s about it. That way people can make an informed decision.
Beyond that, you don’t have to read it.
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.