Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Seaward**

Gizmodo wrote:Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

Rest of the story here.

**Frazzled**

Well, if you are getting your news from FB, you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

**Kilkrazy**

Didn't know Farcebook was considered a serious newspaper of record type of outlet like Fox.

**Jihadin**

I never notice. I did not know FB had a news site. Though I am getting tired of seeing ads of assorted dating sites.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Didn't know Farcebook was considered a serious newspaper of record type of outlet like Fox.

FB doesn't report news. It's an aggregator like Drudge Report is. FB collects news items from all over and put the ones they like best on the feed. The problem is, they put ideology before click-bait and that's bad when you depend on clicks.

**Ahtman**

Breotan wrote:
The problem is, they put ideology before click-bait and that's bad when you depend on clicks.

Besides Jihadin, Frazzled, and Killkrazy being right in each of their posts, I'm not sure a non-news entity and private organization is wrong to put up the trending news they believe their customers want to see.

**Kilkrazy**

They made over $700M Profit last year so it can't be doing them too much harm yet.

**d-usa**

We are fine with actual news sources, like CNN/Fox/MSNBC/HuffPo/TheBlaze/WaPo/etc, curating their news based on their ideology. So what's the deal with a non-news website doing the same?

From the article:

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.

Edit:

It also seems like some of the bias wasn't against "conservative news" as much as it was against the usual "conservative biased websites":

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.

**Ahtman**

Another article about it I ran across that was about this.

Alex McCown via AV Club wrote:In a stunning revelation that has left your weird uncle that lives in rural Montana completely speechless, it turns out the world’s largest social media platform doesn’t just turn on its computers each morning and then give everybody the day off. Gizmodo reports Facebook’s “trending” news curation team engaged in the same bias-driven behaviors of cherry-picking news stories to promote as any other news aggregator. (Here’s a brand-new example of that very same bias at work, for what it’s worth: The A.V. Club is not going to report on today’s news from Variety that digital company Fullscreen is changing its name to Fullscreen Media, because that story sounds boring as hell.) What makes this noteworthy is less the fact of Facebook’s internal practices than its claims to neutrality, in which the online giant states the trending news section, in the upper right-hand corner of the main page, simply “shows you topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

In interviews with several former employees (known internally as “news curators”), Gizmodo claims conservative news stories in particular were routinely suppressed from the trending news feed, due not to any instructions from the company but simply because of bias on the part of whoever was manning the feed. “Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the ex-staffer, remaining anonymous for fear of retribution. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.” Perhaps it was an equally shocking discovery on the part of this former worker, who admits to being one of the few politically conservative people on the team, to learn that roughly 99 percent of humanity has a natural bias against Ted Cruz.

This conservative former news curator for Facebook provided Gizmodo with a list they had kept during their employment, counting stories they had registered as being suppressed by the trending feed. It includes topics like right-wing muckraker site The Drudge Report, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, and Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL murdered in 2013. But while another former curator agreed with the anti-conservative bias in curation (“It was absolutely bias... It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is”), other former curators denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and it was unclear if liberal news stories received similar treatment by politically conservative curators.

In a further turn that just flabbergasted your Aunt Esther who assumed Facebook was ideologically pure, the curators also said they were instructed to put stories considered important into the trending feed, regardless of whether users were reading them. “People stopped caring about Syria,” explains one former employee. “[And] if it wasn’t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.” This was also the case with breaking news, which would often take too long to gain momentum organically and thus would be dropped into the feed via an “injection tool.” Opportunities for Archer-style “phrasing” aside, the injection tool reportedly was used to boost the profile of stories like the Black Lives Matter movement.

And in a final reveal that our Luddite cousin Derrick will probably describe as “utterly unbelievable,” the curators say they had explicit instructions from the company not to include any news about Facebook itself. So you likely won’t be seeing this story about the unsurprising but still newsworthy exposé on Facebook’s trending news practices in the trending news section of the site, regardless of how many times it gets organically shared—which, feel free to go ahead and do that. The former curators agree that the algorithm improved over time, resulting in less instances of injecting stories into the feed. Also, the process was in such constant flux that it’s difficult to say how it may be different now. What’s not difficult to say—as Gizmodo notes—is that Facebook engages in the same news practices involving personal bias and preference as any traditional news organization. Which might be a reasonable thing to admit, if you were Facebook, perhaps via one of the site’s descriptive options, “It’s complicated.” Aunt Esther is always stressing honesty, after all. Honesty and conspiracy theories about Benghazi.

**Scrabb**

Speaking as a conservative, boo hoo.

Plenty of conservative websites deserve to be blacklisted due to errors and lies.

Besides all that, facebook is a company. They should be allowed to do anything short of murder, right?

**d-usa**

We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?

**cuda1179**

Facebook can do what they want with their own property. That I don't care about.

I do however take exception to them holding themselves out as a holier-than-thou "we aren't biased" company. At least own up to it.

**Frazzled**

Frazzled does not have FB. Ghost Tbone has a site, but is not impressed and only opens when Frazzled's wife makes him which about once a year. The last time I was on I unfriended a D Bag who had just bailed on his wife.

**Nevelon**

d-usa wrote:
We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?

I’ve clicked on one or two.

I’m more likely to notice something there and look at other sites for more reliable information on the topic.

Like here in Dakka OT.

Facebook is basically a tool to harvest your personal info and deliver targeted adds. The fact that it lets you keep in touch with your friends is purely secondary.

**Seaward**

Ahtman wrote:Besides Jihadin, Frazzled, and Killkrazy being right in each of their posts, I'm not sure a non-news entity and private organization is wrong to put up the trending news they believe their customers want to see.

The thing is, they're pretty clearly putting up the trending news that the individual curators want to see; organically trending conservative pieces on Facebook wouldn't be, you know, organically trending on Facebook if people on Facebook didn't want to see them.

d-usa wrote: We are fine with actual news sources, like CNN/Fox/MSNBC/HuffPo/TheBlaze/WaPo/etc, curating their news based on their ideology.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:

d-usa wrote: We are fine with actual news sources, like CNN/Fox/MSNBC/HuffPo/TheBlaze/WaPo/etc, curating their news based on their ideology.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Do you have a chip on your shoulder?

Considering that they also didn't run a story with "actual news sources curate their stories to suite ideology", even Gizmodo is fine with it.

So yes, we are fine with it. Because we haven't done gak about it.

Maybe go back to ignoring me?

**Avatar 720**

d-usa wrote:
We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?

Only if it intrigued or amused me enough, and in the rare case of the former I go looking for verification from proper outlets if I'm still curious.

**Ouze**

Nevelon wrote:
Facebook is basically a tool to harvest your personal info and deliver targeted adds. The fact that it lets you keep in touch with your friends is purely secondary.

Are you saying I shouldn't look to Facebook to run hard-hitting news pieces underneath ads like this one, which appeared under my feed a few weeks ago:

Outrageous, I will ask for a full refund immediately.

At least there is always traditional print media to fall back on.

Spoiler:

**djones520**

Facebook is an aggregator, much like Drudge. They don't write stories, they don't do investigations. They find stories and post them up for the people to read.

So, just like Drudge is an unapologetic righty, it would seem like Facebook works the other way.

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Didn't know Farcebook was considered a serious newspaper of record type of outlet like Fox.

Manipulating content according to a political agenda under a broad claim of neutrality? Sounds like a "serious newspaper of record" to me.

**TheMeanDM**

Let's see...

Non news organization (x)
Founder/CEO has distinct political views (x)
Corporations are people too (x)
Freedom of speech ('murica!)
$719m profit (x)

I don't see an issue.

They can do what they like. Fox, CNN, Brietbart, Newsmax, etc. all the cool kids do it.

**Wyrmalla**

The same site which admitted to conducting social experiments in order to cause people to become depressed so as to refine their metrics...

Personally I stick to Puffin Party. ;

**Manchu**

Wyrmalla wrote:
The same site which admitted to conducting social experiments in order to cause people to become depressed so as to refine their metrics...

FB is just the monitoring AI for this Vault-Tec virtual reality simulation we call life.

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
We are a pretty tiny and useless sample site: but has anybody here actually ever looked at that section or even clicked on any link to any story?

I must admit that I have... It's not like I actually get news from there, especially from the "trending" section (because really, do we really consider Justin Bieber getting a face tattoo, or what X Kardashian has done with their rear end this week to be news?)

Personally, I can also see an element of peace keeping about this. As anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest looking at the comments sections of various stories that are semi-related, particularly if they are political posts. Naturally, seeing the comments "in order" is impossible (damn you stupid algorithms!!!) but in many posts that I see, it is people who could broadly be described as "conservative" that tend to start flinging mud sooner. The trend tends to go (as I've seen it... could be wrong) ARTICLE: "Bernie Sanders combed his hair, you'll never guess what happened next!" 5 comments of "I feel the Bern, do you!?" and then one comment of "I really like Bernie, and I hope he wins, but we know Clinton is gonna win" with replies to that of "You're a dirty commie hippy, and YOU are the one that's destroying 'Murica!"

I mean, its all anecdotal... so pinches of salt, YMMV and all that. I'm sure that some folks here can show us articles where it was left-leaning supporters who turned ugly sooner.... Ironically, not as ugly as any Chevy vs. Ford page starts out as though

**feeder**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally, I can also see an element of peace keeping about this. As anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest looking at the comments sections of various stories that are semi-related, particularly if they are political posts. Naturally, seeing the comments "in order" is impossible (damn you stupid algorithms!!!) but in many posts that I see, it is people who could broadly be described as "conservative" that tend to start flinging mud sooner. The trend tends to go (as I've seen it... could be wrong) ARTICLE: "Bernie Sanders combed his hair, you'll never guess what happened next!" 5 comments of "I feel the Bern, do you!?" and then one comment of "I really like Bernie, and I hope he wins, but we know Clinton is gonna win" with replies to that of "You're a dirty commie hippy, and YOU are the one that's destroying 'Murica!"

I mean, its all anecdotal... so pinches of salt, YMMV and all that. I'm sure that some folks here can show us articles where it was left-leaning supporters who turned ugly sooner.... Ironically, not as ugly as any Chevy vs. Ford page starts out as though

I think it's just the people who don't have "their guy" in power. Up here, we had Harper (rightie) running the country into the ground, and all the comment sections were abuzz with "dear Leader fascist overlord" hyperbole.

Now we have Trudeau (centre, but paints himself left) and it's all "Truderp secret muslim commie" hyperbole.

I'm interested to see what happens if Trump wins. Will that break the Internet (tm) worse then Ms Kardashian's rear end?

**whembly**

FB posts news?

<---doesn't have FB account.

Frazzled wrote:
Well, if you are getting your news from FB, you shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place.

Now now... that's harsh.

Social media tends to run a bit more liberal, so... that should be factored in.

Even twitter has been accused of shadowbanning conservatives.

But... eh, I guess I'm a product of my age where I couldn't give a feth about social medias.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
FB posts news?

<---doesn't have FB account.

Nope. There is a "Trending" section which, at least on what I see on the screen is generally click-bait ads sourced from tabloids/pop culture type stuff.

Generally speaking, websites like Foxnews and CNN, somewhere on their articles have a "share" button that you can press to post onto your personal FB account, and people on your friendslist or whatever can see and read the article.

**Ouze**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
There is a "Trending" section which, at least on what I see on the screen is generally click-bait ads sourced from tabloids/pop culture type stuff. .

In my experience, it's essentially like a hybrid of TMZ and the worst parts of CNN a week later - it's very rare for a news story to show up there less than 2 or 3 days before you've read it somewhere else. Additionally, it doesn't really customize itself to your interests the way you would think - I've forever hitting the little X and "I don't care about this" on stories about Bieber or the Kardashians, but they don't seen to pop up any less often.

Right now my news feed has in it a story about a bridge collapse anniversary in Florida - a state I have never visited or cared about in any way - an NBA player's mother's day message, even though I'm less interested in the NBA than I am in the state of Florida - and a story about Justin Bieber getting a face tattoo. I can't fathom in any way that how this gak shows up and honestly the idea that there is an organized suppression of conservative viewpoints is only surprising to me in the sense that there apparently is someone steering this ship after all.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
There is a "Trending" section which, at least on what I see on the screen is generally click-bait ads sourced from tabloids/pop culture type stuff. .

In my experience, it's essentially like a hybrid of TMZ and the worst parts of CNN a week later - it's very rare for a news story to show up there less than 2 or 3 days before you've read it somewhere else. Additionally, it doesn't really customize itself to your interests the way you would think - I've forever hitting the little X and "I don't care about this" on stories about Bieber or the Kardashians, but they don't seen to pop up any less often.

Right now my news feed has in it a story about a bridge collapse anniversary in Florida - a state I have never visited or cared about in any way - an NBA player's mother's day message, even though I'm less interested in the NBA than I am in the state of Florida - and a story about Justin Bieber getting a face tattoo. I can't fathom in any way that how this gak shows up and honestly the idea that there is an organized suppression of conservative viewpoints is only surprising to me in the sense that there apparently is someone steering this ship after all.

Same here.... I think that since I can recall ever starting to glance at what's trending, I think I've seen something that I was actually interested in maybe once... and it was a rugby story I'd already known about and seen.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Do you have a chip on your shoulder?

Considering that they also didn't run a story with "actual news sources curate their stories to suite ideology", even Gizmodo is fine with it.

So yes, we are fine with it. Because we haven't done gak about it.

Maybe go back to ignoring me?

You're always welcome to not respond if it bothers you that much.

But yes, I certainly do take issue with being told I'm fine with major news outlets choosing not to run stories because they conflict with the ideological bent of the editors.