It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Source?




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
In all fairness, Snopes.com has taken the position of UNPROVEN.

I like Snopes. And admittedly, all we have are claims at the moment. However, I personally believe this to be true. I am willing to remain skeptical until there is a smoking gun but I still have my own observations.

edit:

It might not even be that the motivation to cherry pick news stories comes directly from Agent Zuck himself, human error is prevalent in all areas of society. It could be that because it is a Silicon Valley based tech company that the average employee hired is more left leaning and progressive as that is the case in many communities in California. So you have some people who's responsibility it is to monitor the algorithms as we all know they need to be supervised and modified frequently. The article alleges that certain people who were on the team that supervised the news feeds would be doing exactly what they are paid to do, with the exception that they go the extra step to suppress a story here or there based on political bias. That to me, is entirely conceivable. And I believe that FB is not the only company guilty of this and I also believe that their are other companies that actively suppress leftist ideology as well. There are radicals everywhere and like I said this thread isn't about being Pro Conservative or Anti Liberal, it's about censorship in the media.
edit on 5/9/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

News is a for-profit business now.

You won't find unbiased sites, news, people posting, anywhere.

Everyone has an agenda, and everyone now has a voice.

The "truth" is no longer out there. Just opinion based on perceived truths backed by biased "facts".



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Substracto
Oh you too eh. That happened years and years ago to me, so I did not need to use their site anymore.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

The implications for the censorship of views is the same as they have always been, namely, the erosion of the foundations of a free society, the suppression of dissent, and the destruction of the market place of ideas, which always leads to tyranny. Looks like facebook is becoming the new Glavlit.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

While I do believe that News and the act of reporting News is inherently subjective to a certain extent. I believe that Psychologically it is impossible to (completely) separate ones own observation from the report itself. Some are better at it then others. The news outlets that sensationalize the most are the one's that make the most money.

That's why Al Jazeera America went the way of the dinosaur last month and Fox News is consistently the highest rated cable news network.

And now it looks like FB is following FOX's business model but applying it to their own agenda.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Any "news" outlet that decides to have topless women reporting the days events will get the highest ratings.

Regardless of content.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

I was referring to your anecdotal evidence.

You didn't see any slanted material today, so in your opinion, there is never any slanted material. Thus, the claims made by Gizmodo must be false.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I invited you to check for yourself to remove the anecdotal aside and see for yourself...
You chose to quote a headline that doesn't exist and certainly isn't being pushed by Facebook on their trending stories.


Deny ignorance.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
No doubt "conservative" compasses any point of view that doesn't rigidly adhere to left wing dogma.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Azdraik

Yes mate, and if someone steals one of your profile photos and uses it, you have to send them a message and ask them to remove it? that always leads to nothing! their policies are crapy crap.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

It wasn't a headline. If you think it was, I can't help you.

It was a comparison to people who go outside, figure out that it's hot and then use that as evidence for global warming.

You went to your feed, saw nothing you would take as evidence, so you conclude the story is not true.

Same thing. Completely anecdotal.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't go to my feed... I went to trending stories which the article is about.


Not much on their liberal or conservative, mainly animal videos and stories.

This is codswallop with plenty of anonymous sources.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: ketsuko

I invited you to check for yourself to remove the anecdotal aside and see for yourself...
You chose to quote a headline that doesn't exist and certainly isn't being pushed by Facebook on their trending stories.


Deny ignorance.


But that wouldn't do it.

All we would have would be two anecdotes.

The only way to really have any true suspicion would be to test the hypothesis over the long term with an agreed upon method of counting and sorting items on the trend line according to their bias, and even that wouldn't be able to prove if the contentions of the story itself were true or not. All it would actually do is show what kinds of items are more likely to show up on the trending feeds.

And, yes, I went and looked ... since this item is one of the trending items, they'd be mad to show any kind of overt bias now, wouldn't they? Any results anyone draws on this day would naturally be invalid and not indicative of human involvement since the humans are actually aware of the allegations.
edit on 9-5-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The linked article just has too many conservative triggers, it reeks of propaganda. Not that FaceBook doesn't have it's issues.
edit on 5/9/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I no longer have an account, but my husband still does. His always shows a lot of pro-conservative stuff, which he finds very odd. He aligns the most with some aspects of the anarchist political philosophy. Chew on that -- the feed's a bit backward in this case considering the article's claims, ain't it?

I suggest keeping in consideration that it's not completely about pushing a "liberal" agenda so much as it is about political spectrum-wide manipulation. Keep people fed the opposite of what they support or agree with (and therefore ticked off/disgusted) in effort to sway them well away from coalescing, perhaps?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The end result will be a population dumbed down by the reverberations created within their electronic echo chambers.

If you use Facebook for news, you're doing it wrong. Facebook is to connect with family/friends, share pictures/videos, maybe throw up something humorous or thoughtful so people who know you can know a little about your life here and there.

Its not the "im going to camp out for 12 hours to fish for validation via 'Likes' and shares" that it has become. Today i scrolled through and saw someone using a picture of a baby without arms and legs to try to mine the internet for this little bit of validation (like and share or you're heartless"). WTF, people?!? You are so weak psychologically that you have to exploit a disabled baby to prop up your delicate ego?!?
edit on 5/9/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


WTF, people?!? You are so weak psychologically that you have to exploit a disabled baby to prop up your delicate ego?!?


LOL. I am so thankful everyday that I have never and will never participate in that. Of course I still have to sift through the muck in various other social contexts, like ATS (and yes we all do our share of sifting). But I love the fact that by not having a FB I can never be concerned with what someone said about me on FB. And I've never considered second hand sources (aka people I'm internet friends with) reliable for news. If my friends wanted to share a news story with me they would never link me to a FB page.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I use it for the comment plug-in at other websites which persist in using it. I stopped using facebook for the social media aspect of having "my own" page long ago. It was getting clogged with too much stuff related to stuff that was linked to other stuff.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Is is gizmodo anyway? Are they an acreditted news organization? I'm asking, because the article didn't provide sources that I saw..just a bunch of "contractors said"..not "really reputable contractor James Whoever"..

That said, it is kinda scary to think one guy could influence so many people...



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join