Facebook Changes Trending Topics Amid Accusations Of Bias Against Conservatives

[Narwal]

They're not necessary because privately owned companies should be able to do whatever they want. Unless it's discriminate against people who have different opinions than you. Oh...

Facebook understands that which is necessary. If they were not necessary, they wouldn't do them. When you are a business, and you have a problem that's going to cut your user base in half, you do what's necessary.

[Blur4stuff]

so facebook will show more topics about climate change being a hoax and how jesus rode dinosaurs?

anyone able to provide examples of topics that aren't ridiculous that conservatives want to see?

i have no idea what they think is being suppressed

[PC2]

so facebook will show more topics about climate change being a hoax and how jesus rode dinosaurs?

anyone able to provide examples of topics that aren't ridiculous that conservatives want to see?

i have no idea what they think is being suppressed

Anti-mass-unskilled-migration articles. People should see both sides without a human adjusting algorithms based on their personal positions.

[Narwal]

so facebook will show more topics about climate change being a hoax and how jesus rode dinosaurs?

anyone able to provide examples of topics that aren't ridiculous that conservatives want to see?

i have no idea what they think is being suppressed

Things like discussions on Hillary Clinton and the ongoing FBI investigations. You know real topics that are being talked about by the left, but without the tilt of trying to protect Clinton.

[PC2]

So basically without facts then. I mean she just has to be guilty!

No side has a monopoly on the truth. All we want is for Facebook to seek neutrality and that's what they are doing.

[BuckSparkles]

No side has a monopoly on the truth. All we want is for Facebook to seek neutrality and that's what they are doing.

Agreed. Facebook is such a widely used site that it should have some kind of neutrality to it. I mean, sure it is a private organization, but still.

Hopefully they go through with this change.

People deserve to hear both sides of every issue.

[Deleted]

So basically without facts then. I mean she just has to be guilty!

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of the "trending" feature.

[Endus]

No side has a monopoly on the truth. All we want is for Facebook to seek neutrality and that's what they are doing.

The idea that a neutral position between two sides is "the truth" is inherently false.

If I argue that 2+2=4 and you argue that 2+2=5, compromising on the middle ground that 2+2=4.5 is still wrong.

I'm not saying a particular side has a monopoly on the truth, but on certain issues, there absolutely is a "true" side and a "false" side. And it would be misleading to give both equal credence.

Sure, both sides can be equally biased, but that's not typically the case. Typically, it leans more in one direction, or the other. A reasonable person looks to the evidence, and comes to their own conclusion, they don't try and find some artificial middle between those speaking the loudest.

[Crissi]

While I never noticed this since "things related to this story" still shows a bunch of conservative sites, glad to see they're making steps to be more transparent and getting rid of that top 10 list.

However, I dont think a story should be published just because its conservative to balance out the previous bias (if any). 'Obama is a Kenyan muslim' or 'Newton didnt happen' still needs to be not shown because of its conspiracy theory nonsense.

[Deleted]

It's no secret that Facebook, Twitter (and much of the tech world) etc are all very left-wing, one interview with Facebook's CFO will give you a hint as to what kind of bias you can expect there

The political nature of the culture shows in how these sites prioritise newsflow

I'm just impressed they actually took remedial steps to be a bit more impartial - but I guess the bias was so obvious they had to, still a very good thing

Expecting companies to explicitly admit fault however is a different thing; no one from Halliburton to Nestle to Facebook to BP is going to do that, they will just paper over the cracks and move on

[Crissi]

Actually I think BP did, but when you basically have 11 people killed and destroy the environment for all but most of 1 gulf coast state, you cant really avoid it

[Deleted]

Actually I think BP did, but when you basically have 11 people killed and destroy the environment for all but most of 1 gulf coast state, you cant really avoid it

It took months of the global press hammering them for that to happen, and facebook hasn't killed anyone (yet)

and yes I'm curious to see how facebook would kill someone, the imagination runs wild

[Crissi]

It took months of the global press hammering them for that to happen, and facebook hasn't killed anyone (yet)

and yes I'm curious to see how facebook would kill someone, the imagination runs wild

facebooking while crossing a busy street maybe?

anyways otherwise I agree. Buisnesses will almost never admit fault unless its super super SUPER SUPER bad. like BP bad. Although I think Chipotle did publicly address their shit...

[PC2]

If I argue that 2+2=4 and you argue that 2+2=5, compromising on the middle ground that 2+2=4.5 is still wrong.

Arithmetic isn't political, feel free to get that trending.

but on certain issues, there absolutely is a "true" side and a "false" side.

No there isn't on any big complex issue, unless you can prove everyone on a certain side of the political spectrum believes the exact same thing. For example, not everyone on the right believes human rights start at fertilization, and not everyone on the left believes you should be able to abort a baby 3 days before the expected birth date.

[Endus]

Arithmetic isn't political, feel free to get that trending.

The point, which you're so aggressively avoiding, is that on some issues, there is a "right" side. Taking the middle ground between that and the opposition isn't "neutral", it's deliberately wrong.

No there isn't on any big issue, unless you can prove everyone on a certain side of the political spectrum believes the exact same thing. For example, not everyone on the right believes human rights start at fertilization, and not everyone on the left believes you should be able to abort a baby 3 days before the expected birth date.

Well, that speaks to the silliness of claiming that there are firm "sides" on all these issues, divided only along political grounds, which is a completely separate silliness.

I mean in cases of, say, teaching evolution in schools. That's the "right" side. Teaching creationism is the "other side". Providing a balanced discussion of both is not a "neutral" position, it gives unwarranted weight to an objectively religious perspective, one which has no place in public schooling in the first place.

[Pangean]

You keep missing the part where they said this:

"Our investigation could not fully exclude the possibility of isolated improper actions or unintentional bias in the implementation of our guidelines or policies,"

please stop that.

You mean they couldn't prove a negative? Shocking.

[Aggrophobic]

Haha. This is funny.
So they got butthurt becasue their ideas were not as popular as they would have liked?

Silly people.

[PC2]

The point, which you're so aggressively avoiding, is that on some issues, there is a "right" side. Taking the middle ground between that and the opposition isn't "neutral", it's deliberately wrong.

No there is not a "right" side to any big political issue.

I mean in cases of, say, teaching evolution in schools. That's the "right" side. Teaching creationism is the "other side". Providing a balanced discussion of both is not a "neutral" position, it gives unwarranted weight to an objectively religious perspective, one which has no place in public schooling in the first place.

That isn't a big issue, it's a minority of areas who push their ideas against our secular society. You can't generalize that to a majority of right wing voters just because they are Christians. Heck even most Democrats are probably Christians. It doesn't mean most people on either side support creationism via government.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Facebook would be better off being investigated by a third party.

[Santti]

Facebook would be better off being investigated by a third party.

Perhaps, but even if bias was found, they still wouldn't have done anything illegal. This is an internal investigation of their own policies. There is literally no need for 3rd party.