“With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”
The social media kingÂ has made it no secret that they want to be “the host of the news”. Their plans are to become what AOL once was, an overlay of the internet. The average American spends 45 minutes every day on the social media king. That distracted driver, that person you see with their face buried in their mobile device is more than likely on the social network. The social media king processes about 3 Billion posts every 15 minutes. In order to handle that sheer volume of posts they rely heavily on AI (artificial intelligence). Now at face value that does not sound like a bad thing, however those lines of code and algorithms are written by humans. These human’s have biases and they also have an agenda.
The social media king has the ability to shape public opinion through what it allows to populate your news feed. They have invested vast sums of money studying this. They are betting their future on it. Â It has been long suspected that the social media king has been suppressing viewpoints that are different than their own agenda. This dirty little secret has been well known among members of conservative media with a presence on the social media kings platform. Their posts have been buried or deleted for “violating community standards”. Their admins have been banned and profiles deleted. Their pages have been targeted for post suppression and are often targeted for deletion. Â All of which is often done with little to no recourse for the page owners.
Can the social media giant be trusted? Can they be trusted to be the curator of a free press. If their track record is any indication of their trustworthiness then the answer is a clear and resounding “NO”.
During this current election cycle looking at the vast amount of data related to posts on social media is is very apparent what the biases at the social media giant are.
In the months leading up to the primaries content that was anti-Bernie Sanders was allowed to go viral while content critical of his female opponent was largely suppressed. Stories that were favorable for Sanders opponent were allowed greater reach. The same could be said about pages dedicated to the various candidates. As recent as last week numerous large Bernie Sanders closed and private groups used were targeted and deleted.
What is the value of that type of media promotion and protection? The social media giant charges a great deal of money to promote posts and expand their reach. The value of these contributions far exceed the cash and non-cash contribution limits under Federal election laws. These are serious charges. The conservative author and film maker Dinesh D’Sousa was convicted of felony charges for far less than this.
Today Gizmodo published an article documenting some of the abuses by the social media giant. Here are some excerpts from the article below:
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social networkâ€™s influential â€œtrendingâ€ 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 siteâ€™s users.
Several former Facebook â€œnews curators,â€ as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially â€œinjectâ€ selected stories into the trending news module, even if they werenâ€™t popular enough to warrant inclusionâ€”or in some cases werenâ€™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, Facebookâ€™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 thingâ€”but it is in stark contrast to the companyâ€™s claims that the trending module simply lists â€œtopics that have recently become popular on Facebook.â€
These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebookâ€™s trending news teamâ€”a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the â€œtrendingâ€ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebookâ€™s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebookâ€™s usersâ€”167 million in the US aloneâ€”are reading at any given moment.
â€œDepending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,â€ said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. â€œIâ€™d come on shift and Iâ€™d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldnâ€™t be trending because either the curator didnâ€™t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.â€
The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. â€œI believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,â€ the former curator said.
Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. â€œIt was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,â€ said the former curator. â€œEvery once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasnâ€™t as biased.â€
Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebookâ€™s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.
Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the omissions as a function of his colleaguesâ€™ judgements; there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work.
Managers on the trending news team did, however, explicitly instruct curators to artificially manipulate the trending module in a different way: When users werenâ€™t reading stories that management viewed as important, several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending news feed anyway. Several former curators described using something called an â€œinjection toolâ€ to push topics into the trending module that werenâ€™t organically being shared or discussed enough to warrant inclusionâ€”putting the headlines in front of thousands of readers rather than allowing stories to surface on their own. In some cases, after a topic was injected, it actually became the number one trending news topic on Facebook.
â€œWe were told that if we saw something, a news story that was on the front page of these ten sites, like CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, then we could inject the topic,â€ said one former curator. â€œIf it looked like it had enough news sites covering the story, we could inject itâ€”even if it wasnâ€™t naturally trending.â€ Sometimes, breaking news would be injected because it wasnâ€™t attaining critical mass on Facebook quickly enough to be deemed â€œtrendingâ€ by the algorithm. Former curators cited the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris as two instances in which non-trending stories were forced into the module. Facebook has struggled to compete with Twitter when it comes to delivering real-time news to users; the injection tool may have been designed to artificially correct for that deficiency in the network. â€œWe would get yelled at if it was all over Twitter and not on Facebook,â€ one former curator said.
In other instances, curators would inject a storyâ€”even if it wasnâ€™t being widely discussed on Facebookâ€”because it was deemed important for making the network look like a place where people talked about hard news. â€œPeople stopped caring about Syria,â€ one former curator said. â€œ[And] if it wasnâ€™t trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad.â€ That same curator said the Black Lives Matter movement was also injected into Facebookâ€™s trending news module. â€œFacebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter,â€ the individual said. â€œThey realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics. When we injected it, everyone started saying, â€˜Yeah, now Iâ€™m seeing it as number oneâ€™.â€ This particular injection is especially noteworthy because the #BlackLivesMatter movement originated on Facebook, and the ensuing media coverage of the movement often noted its powerful social media presence.
(In February, CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed his support for the movement in an internal memo chastising Facebook employees for defacing Black Lives Matter slogans on the companyâ€™s internal â€œsignature wall.â€)
When stories about Facebook itself would trend organically on the network, news curators used less discretionâ€”they were told not to include these stories at all. â€œWhen it was a story about the company, we were told not to touch it,â€ said one former curator. â€œIt had to be cleared through several channels, even if it was being shared quite a bit. We were told that we should not be putting it on the trending tool.â€
(The curators interviewed for this story worked for Facebook across a timespan ranging from mid-2014 to December 2015.)
â€œWe were always cautious about covering Facebook,â€ said another former curator. â€œWe would always wait to get second level approval before trending something to Facebook. Usually we had the authority to trend anything on our own [but] if it was something involving Facebook, the copy editor would call their manager, and that manager might even call their manager before approving a topic involving Facebook.â€
Gizmodo reached out to Facebook for comment about each of these specific claims via email and phone, but did not receive a response.
Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, there were fewer instances of stories being injected. They also said that the trending news process was constantly being changed, so thereâ€™s no way to know exactly how the module is run now. But the revelations undermine any presumption of Facebook as a neutral pipeline for news, or the trending news module as an algorithmically-driven list of what people are actually talking about.
Rather, Facebookâ€™s efforts to play the news game reveal the company to be much like the news outlets it is rapidly driving toward irrelevancy: a select group of professionals with vaguely center-left sensibilities. It just happens to be one that poses as a neutral reflection of the vox populi, has the power to influence what billions of users see, and openly discusseswhether it should use that power to influence presidential elections.
â€œIt wasnâ€™t trending news at all,â€ said the former curator who logged conservative news omissions. â€œIt was an opinion.â€
The social media giant cannot and should not be trusted to be the curator of news. They are a publicly traded private company and they have zero duty to free speech and allowing dissenting views. Unfortunately the social media giant has become a corporately owned public square. Â Their terms and conditions that it’s users agree to are very much one sided and give the users zero ability to sue for damages.
Expect in the coming months that lead up to the November election that their candidate of choice will get a great deal of help. The dissenting views will be buried and the pages that promote these views will be punished.
This is not reserved just for American politics. If you post anti-migrant materials your posts are deleted and you will be banned. As we said the social media giant is a private platform, they can do as they please without any legal ramifications. Free speech does not live on the social media giant nor is it valued or protected.
What will be done? By conservatives? By law makers? By the Department of Justice?
Facebook went into full on damage control after the story above went viral. Oddly, the story did not appear as a trending news story on Facebook right away even though it was #4 on Reddit and it was plastered all over every online media outlet and all over the Facebook news feeds.
Here’s Facebook’s full statement to Tech Insider, which doesn’t explicitly deny Gizmodo’s claims that former employees hid news stories based on political bias:
We take allegations of bias very seriously. Facebook is a platform for people and perspectives from across the political spectrum.
Trending Topics shows you the popular topics and hashtags that are being talked about on Facebook. There are rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality.Â These guidelines do not permit the suppression of political perspectives. Nor do they permit the prioritization of one viewpoint over another or one news outlet over another. These guidelines do not prohibit any news outlet from appearing in Trending Topics.
Facebook is not being honest. They have a great deal to hide. The data that we have shows that Facebook has not only been altering the “Trending Stories” but they have been deleting conservative posts, banning users, unpublishing pages, deleting groups and pages that have a different viewpoint other than their own. They do this often under the guise of violating their “Community Standards” when this occurs.