A denial that Facebook censors Conservatives provides proof of the opposite.
While some claim that Facebook censors Conservatives and conservative news, it is the defenders of Facebook that prove the claim is true. Gizmodo first broke the story:
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.
As far as I’m concerned, this is completely plausible. But a story in USA Today should put the matter beyond doubt. The headline says that Facebook denies the charge but the story includes this:
One former Facebook news curator, also unnamed, challenged the Gizmodo report, telling the Guardian that newsworthiness was judged by how often an article appeared in trusted news outlets such as the New York Times and the BBC. This person did not see any evidence of conservative news being suppressed.
Didn’t see any evidence? He just gave us evidence!
This shows the giant bait and switch involved in social media and new media. Facebook could easily have an algorithm that showed what was trending, but they don’t want to do that. They want you to think that is what is going on and that you’re getting unfiltered information about what is trending. Why else would you go to Facebook and not to a more conventional news website unless you thought you were getting insights into what other people care about?
But they are actually using the “new media” as a platform to promote the old media. Instead of leaving the dinosaur media behind, Facebook (or Fakebook, as Rush Limbaugh calls them) is pushing it on unsuspecting users.
If Facebook was really harnessing the power of social media to determine what is trending, there would be no need for human curators.
The fact that USA Today would pass off an admission that they judged news by how often it appeared in “trusted news outlets such as the New York Times and the BBC” as a refutation that Facebook was manipulating the news shows how arrogant and clueless the mainstream media has become.
By the way, why did Facebook feel the need to make the liberal viewpoint more prominent? You know why: Liberalism can’t survive in society unless the truth is smothered. Thus, we get venues like Fakebook.