Treating their users like Mushrooms

[woodchip]

So Face book tries to keep their users clueless:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-work ... 1775461006

So tell me, why do you lefties feel the need to hide what is going on in the world?

[callmeslick]

then, how come my news feed seems to locate plenty of conservative news and views? I'm smelling serious BS there.

[Ferno]

suppressed? If that's true, why am I seeing a sarah palin story right now?

[callmeslick]

that's punishment, not supression, Ferno.

[Spidey]

Sounds like something the show Politically Incorrect used to do.

That being only allowing the batshit crazy Republicans on the show, and juxtapositioning them with very reasonable liberal guests.

And always having two liberals one moderate and one batshit crazy Republican, to create the idea that liberal thought and opinion was in the majority. (and Republicans were crazy)

I don’t know, I’m not even caring at this point, but it sounds like there could be something similar going on.

[callmeslick]

....or not, given the general level of disconnect from reality on the right in recent years.

[Spidey]

Sure…and then someone takes the opportunity to amplify that.

[vision]

Where is the show with the reasonable conservatives and the batshit crazy liberal?

[woodchip]

Where is the show with the reasonable conservatives and the batshit crazy liberal?

Exactly.

[vision]

Where is the show with the reasonable conservatives and the batshit crazy liberal?

Exactly.

You miss the point. Clearly there is a market for that kind of show. Why haven't the Conservatives made one? And for that matter, why is it that all the popular tech "liberal?" Where are the conservatives with the good and/or useful inventions?

[Ferno]

Where is the show with the reasonable conservatives and the batshit crazy liberal?

Exactly.

and another joke goes over your head.

[Nightshade]

Where is the show with the reasonable conservatives and the **** crazy liberal?

It's called the Michael Medved show. It's on radio.

[woodchip]

Where is the show with the reasonable conservatives and the batshit crazy liberal?

Exactly.

You miss the point. Clearly there is a market for that kind of show. Why haven't the Conservatives made one? And for that matter, why is it that all the popular tech "liberal?" Where are the conservatives with the good and/or useful inventions?

All popular tech is liberal? Now that's a stretch.

[vision]

All popular tech is liberal? Now that's a stretch.

But isn't that the complaint from the Right? "Mainstream Media" is a bunch of liberals? Facebook, Google, Microsoft and General Electric (MSNBC), major ISPs, all the auto and airplane manufactures, etc... These places are constantly accused of being politically correct towards the Left.

If I am to believe what I read, the United States has about half it's population leaning Right. So how is it possible that all these people are being suppressed? Aren't any of them business savvy enough to make equal impacts on the country?

[Spidey]

Heh, I have never heard the auto makers being accused of being politically correct.

[woodchip]

Seems the Senate is now looking into this:

http://gizmodo.com/senate-gop-launches- ... 1775767018

[callmeslick]

I'm hardly surprised at that news, Woody, as they've spent the last 7 plus years on stupid ideological 'investigations'.

[Ferno]

another manufactoversy.

[Vander]

I don't use Facebook, so I don't really have any idea of how they curate news or the results of that curation. I can see a few reasons I wouldn't have any issue with this. For example, if the mechanism is based on "Likes" or some other crowd sourced metric, results can be skewed if the crowd is more conservative. More conservatives using or being active on Facebook would only generate and reinforce a bubble. I generally don't like enforced topical balance in news coverage, but I don't think crowd sourcing topics is any sort of cure.

[Spidey]

But the issue really has nothing to do with algorithms or something that can make conservative stories not show up in the section for this or that reason.

This has to do with deliberate acts by employees.

[Vander]

This has to do with deliberate acts by employees.

Well.. yeah. I'm saying it's not necessarily a bad thing these people are curating what the algorithm burps up.

[woodchip]

If you depend on getting your news from facebook you should not be allowed to vote

[Vander]

If you depend on getting your news from facebook you should not be allowed to vote

Not allowing people to vote sure does seem to be a recurring theme for you guys.

[Top Gun]

I can think of someone much closer to home whom I'd happily remove that right from first.

[Ferno]

If you depend on getting your news from facebook you should not be allowed to vote

brilliant idea. That way, only a select few with money can vote. Because you know, that's never led to anything bad, ever.

[Spidey]

Sarcasm...what a concept...look it up.

[woodchip]

If you depend on getting your news from facebook you should not be allowed to vote

brilliant idea. That way, only a select few with money can vote. Because you know, that's never led to anything bad, ever.

You do know at the start of this country only land owners could vote and women couldn't. Seems nothing bad happened then.

[Krom]

Who knew the Civil War was "nothing bad"...

[woodchip]

And those same voters got Lincoln elected now didn't they.

[callmeslick]

You do know at the start of this country only land owners could vote and women couldn't. Seems nothing bad happened then.

many of us, descended from the early landed gentry still reminisce about those 'good old days'. Luckily, they had enough time to essentially write the rules to favor wealthy males ever since.

Anyhow, you do know, as late as 1912, one need not be a citizen, but merely a legal resident of the US to vote? Seems not that much bad came of that, either, eh?

[callmeslick]

and, until they progressed past the Dauguerotype and Tintypes, the idea of a photo ID never occurred to anyone either.

[Ferno]

You do know at the start of this country only land owners could vote and women couldn't. Seems nothing bad happened then.

and yet again, the sarcasm flies right over your head.

Nothing bad happened. Right. Did you fail history?

[woodchip]

You do know at the start of this country only land owners could vote and women couldn't. Seems nothing bad happened then.

many of us, descended from the early landed gentry still reminisce about those 'good old days'. Luckily, they had enough time to essentially write the rules to favor wealthy males ever since.

Anyhow, you do know, as late as 1912, one need not be a citizen, but merely a legal resident of the US to vote? Seems not that much bad came of that, either, eh?

Only in some states and from what I read, those non-citizens had to declare their intent to become a citizen. So what was your point in making that statement? That illegal people in this country could vote?

[callmeslick]

stuff DOES go over your head a lot, doesn't it? My point was that the rules have evolved, overall the 'system' or framework has remained intact. Clearly, it was designed to change with the nature of the nation, and yes, good and bad things have happened. To our nation's credit, we have frequently learned from the bad stuff and addressed it. Thus, for you to state the original setup and extrapolate is no more valid than choosing any time along the way and doing so. Nothing deeper about 'illegals' or whatever else you'd like to fantasize about.