Facebook Is Tweaking Trending Topics To Counter Charges of Bias (recode.net) 157
An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has said once again in an open letter to Sen. John Thune, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, that its Trending Topics section is free of any political bias or manipulation. But in response to Gizmodo's report that Facebook employees were suppressing conservative news stories, Facebook is revamping how editors find trending stories. "We could not fully exclude the possibility of isolated improper actions or unintentional bias in the implementation of our guidelines or policies," Facebook general Counsel Colin Stretch wrote. Of course, Facebook is going to train the human editors who work on their trending section; they're also going to abandon several automated tools it used to find and categorize trending news in the past. Recode provides some examples, writing, "[Facebook] will no longer use its "1K list," a group of 1,000 websites it used to help verify headlines." Facebook will also get rid of several top publications, including the New York Times and CNN.
Biased (Score:5, Insightful)
So in summary, Facebook is going to become biased in order to prevent being labeled as biased.
Re:Biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why I don't use Facebook as a source of news. I only use it to keep in touch with people I know, and ignore the rest of whatever else it offers.
Re:Biased (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, that's pretty much what everyone uses it for. Check out what your friends are doing/baby pictures/cat pictures, ignore everything else.
Twitter is where everything is, if you're into Twitter.
Nobody bothers, or cares about most online publications as a whole, but piecemeal they are still considered primary sources of news, and unlike facebook, Twitter doesn't promote articles, it promotes "trending hashtags" and that is an entirely human driven mechanic. Twitter's platform is also a lot harder to manipulate with sockpuppet accounts.
Facebook's "verification" is what ultimately harms it, same with google+ and various "real name policies" like that used for HuffPo, CBC.ca and such. All it does it discourage posting on controversial topics and just comment on local news instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I've taken a look at some hashtag-aggregation site that tries to figure out "hashtrends".
And ignoring local trends, the only thing the US is currently seemingly interested is some kind of bachelorette. I don't know what it is, but I cannot really get myself to think that this is in any way relevant...
FB as news source (Score:3, Funny)
The person who depends on FB as his source of news should depend on a coffee machine as his source of vitamins
Re: (Score:3)
I use facebook as a source of news about friends. And, of course, a valuable source of occasional cat pics without going to the trouble of actually visiting a cat pic site.
and what's so wrong with vitamin C anyway?
ps: I use userscripts to make FB less annoying, including setting `display: none` on Suggestions and other spam, "Trending" bullshit, etc. I also use a separate browser (midori) for FB and only FB so that my other browsers don't have to run FB spyware scripts and web-bugs.
Re:FB as news source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bias is much more about the choice of stories to harp on all day long, day after day, than it is accuracy of the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth that lies in the middle (Score:2)
AKA the Argument to moderation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
FYI the truth doesn't always lie in the middle it is possible that one side is telling the whole truth and the other side has chosen a self-serving lie. Happens much more often than you would think. Be forewarned.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.... only thing is why this senator is not raking Faux (errr...Fox) News over the coals for their "Fair & Balanced" news reporting?
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I don't use Facebook as a source of news. I only use it to keep in touch with people I know, and ignore the rest of whatever else it offers.
Me too. I use slashdot. There's no bias here.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I don't use Facebook as a source of news. I only use it to keep in touch with people I know, and ignore the rest of whatever else it offers.
Could someone please inform our lawmakers of this fact? Apparently they are under the illusion that they need to step in and mandate a neutral stance within a damn social media network in order to ensure that all parties are getting their fair share of shit slinging, which is the phase of the election we've now reached. Heaven forbid the shit slinging is slanted for the masses.
I seriously cannot believe our lawmakers are involved in this. Makes me wonder how they would have attacked AOL when keywords wer
Re: (Score:2)
All this fuss about "Trending" on Facebook... Am I the only one who's never even seen this thing. It doesn't show up on my FB page. I googled it, just to see what it is, but it doesn't show up where it's supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
It might depend on how you view it. I've seen it on desktop browsers but not on mobile browsers. On desktop browsers it might be something that can be suppressed with plugins/extensions.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The entertaining part about all of this is that a political party that is fighting for private organizations to deny groups service based on "religious" preference is now complaining that a private organization is denying groups "equal time" based on political preference.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that trending topics should be equally distributed among biases?
No (Score:2)
You keep making that claim, other people are stating that "trending" should not be manipulated because Facebook has progressive biases. No, it's not the same thing and you are a moron if you keep repeating it.
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Facebook, a non-governmental corporation, can't influence its trending items in a liberal fashion but it's OK for Fox News to continually spout the conservative company line.
Just checking.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, there's good bias and bad bias.
Fox News, being 100% biased toward extremist right-wing nutbaggery, is allowed to be as biased as they like. This is good bias.
Facebook weren't always biased towards that, they let some lefty-sounding things though sometimes, so that's automatically bad bias. Shame on them.
Of course, the difference is that they're both privately owned media/publishing businesses. That crucial difference is why it's OK for Fox to be biased but not Facebook. Shame on those damn co
What? (Score:3)
Fox is not pro-right, and has never been pro-right. They are anti-right as opposed to most other media being pro-left. Fox does not promote liberty, or the 2nd amendment, or fiscal responsibility, or limited Government, or right leaning candidates like Rand or Ron Paul (two easy examples). They were talking about Trump for ratings/money and because he is not from the right.
There is no longer a right leaning media, and has not been since the early 90s when all major outlets were monopolized and canned the
Re: (Score:2)
Using your definition of "right", there hasn't been a major party on the right since 1980.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct in a general sense, but I'd say that the actual loss of the right was in the 60s. Kennedy was "right" and you see where that landed, his VP was left as soon as he swore in. Ross Perot was right, but he lost the primary due to several criminal actions by the Bush Campaign. Ron Paul was right, but he similarly lost the primary due to various activities by both the Media and Republican party.
Controlled opposition is not some new idea, it's been out there for centuries.
Re: Biased (Score:2)
Facebook is saying, in essence, "We used to be biased, but we made changes and so should be taken with fewer grains of salt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News tell you that?
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law [wikipedia.org]
Re:Biased (Score:5, Interesting)
You could read it that way. You could also read it as Facebook will stop shitting on links that don't come from a major site:
I did an experiment with fb some years back when it was failing to post most of my political content. If I posted some inane bullshit (I literally used something with "Snooki" in the headline at the time) it would post immediately and stay posted. If I posted something with far-left political content, not only would it often fail to post to begin with, but Facebook would actually remove the URL from the status update later, as in the next day or two, or sometimes weeks later. If I went to my history and manually verified that the content still existed, it did. And meanwhile, my shit canary comment sitting next to it would still be there.
Now, I don't know, maybe they did this to all kinds of content, but in my testing, they were specifically killing left-of-left ultra-liberal content. And it happened again and again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Like the iPod shuffle can't be too random or it annoys people because it isn't random enough.
Re: (Score:2)
So in summary, Facebook is going to become biased in order to prevent being labeled as biased.
And now that they have facebook on the run, they won't stop until they only reference Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
Cave baby, cave!
Re: (Score:2)
Bias? I feel they are biased in terms of "quality" of "what is news." My news feed always contains (to me -- stupid) Entertainment news "Celebrity caught walking their dog" or "Person paints house lime green" "Trump says Fox news anchor has two headed baby" Stuff that I wouldn't consider news. Tabloid "National Enquirer" stuff yes. But news...no.
Is there a conservative version of The Enquirer?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
as opposed to left wing fascist who want to force their silly social "justice" religion on others
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've not seen anyone forcing straight folk to enter into marriages homosexual folk. Can you say the same for your "side"? It's either you marry the opposite sex or you don't marry at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I've not seen anyone forcing straight folk to enter into marriages homosexual folk. Can you say the same for your "side"?
Well, speaking for myself, I don't have a "side." I hate bible-thumping conservatives every bit as much as SJW hippies.
What I oppose is ANYONE who wants to restrict my right to speak my mind, or who wants to force me to pay lip service to their cause, or who wants to make their cause above criticism, or who wants to bully and threaten anyone whose only sin is to dare disagree with them. And that's true whether it's a bible-thumper passing some law to make Christianity the official U.S. religion, an SJW tryi
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that your "equally desperate" claim is complete bullshit.
the right says "you're different so we have the right to hound you until you commit suicide. fucking faggot!"
the left says "mind your own fucking business".
Re:Biased (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately that's not right. The left does actually NOT say "mind your own fucking business". It says "I tell you what fucking business you should mind!" and more important "I also tell you what business you MUST NOT mind".
And that's where I had to detach myself from being "left". I do not feel that I have the right to tell people what they are allowed to fucking THINK.
Re:Biased (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what "left" you were a part of, but I've never in my life wanted (or intended) to control how anybody thinks. Be as prejudiced as you like! But god so help you if you attempt to act on your prejudice, say by enacting laws to enshrine that prejudice into statutes that we all have to follow. Then I will come down on you like the hammer of Thor.
So: Think, whatever you want. Be as prejudiced and hateful as you like! But if you choose to act on that, yeah, I've got a huge problem with that.
Thoughts don't really matter. Actions? They matter.
Re:Biased (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really a friend of that false "left-right" dichotomy. "You're left? So you're a commie!" No. For the same reason that someone who's right leaning isn't a Fascist.
What I despise is those "new left", that's about as despicable as the "new right" we had a while ago now, that emerged, which are religiously fanatic do-gooders. PC-bullshit spewing, safe-space needing special snowflakes that come up with solutions trying to find a problem. Who ensure that you can't tell no joke anymore because someone, somewhere could maybe somehow be offended by it.
"What's the opposite of Christopher Reeves?"
"Christopher Walken"
But you can't tell that! That's offensive! To cripples. No, wait, you can't say that word anymore either. They're disabled. No, wait, they're not, they're "differently able" now. Or maybe they are not anymore and we have a new bullshit word now for it, sorry, I don't really waste my time keeping up with bullshit.
Fuck that. And the PC snowflakes while we're at it.
That's what I'm talking about. These bullshitters are not about "mind your own buisiness", they are EXACTLY the same ilk as the other religious idiots from the right side of the spectrum trying to dictate what I may or may not say, think or do, not based on some real requirements for coexistence. One take their moral high ground from the whims of their imaginary buddy, one from the imagined "offense" someone MIGHT feel when he's told that reality doesn't conform to his (or her, their, hir or whatever fucked up mangled pronoun is now correct to use so I don't "oppress" someone by assuming his, her, its, whatevershit's gender) whims.
Fuck them both. Lock them in a room and hand them enough ammo to shoot each other.
Whoever loses
We win.
Re: (Score:3)
> one from the imagined "offense" someone MIGHT feel when he's told that reality doesn't conform to his (or her, their, hir or whatever fucked up mangled pronoun is now correct to use so I don't "oppress" someone by assuming his, her, its, whatevershit's gender) whims.
Exactly how many times have *you* personally been admonished for using the wrong pronoun or the like. Not searched for it on the Internet, not heard about it over conversation, but been personally confronted by another human being for some
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a step: brick up the door.
If you open the door to resolve the schrodinger's cat paradox, one of several bad things can occur: .. why the police officer? Respond
1) both of them shoot you dead, having cottoned to the fact that you set them to kill each other.
2) the survivor shoots you dead, ditto
3) the police officer now standing behind you arrests you for murder or accomplice-to of one or both.
Re: (Score:2)
which are religiously fanatic do-gooders. PC-bullshit spewing, safe-space needing special snowflakes that come up with solutions trying to find a problem.
They aren't all religious. and those that are, are not all religious fanatics. But they are fanatic about "politically correct".
However, "politically correct" is intrinsically "politically incorrect".
Don't know what the current "proper" terminology, but several years ago, a friend of mine said "How is 'vertically challenged' less insulting than 'short'? I'm short and damn proud of it."
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the interpretation, but I think the way I put it is closer to reality.
Been admonished once; heard once is too often (Score:2)
Exactly how many times have *you* personally been admonished for using the wrong pronoun or the like.
I have personally been admonished once that I can remember in the past year, for having used "tranny" when "trans" was appropriate. But I have read about situations in which being admonished once is enough to get fired.
PC is essentially consideration. Sure, there are some people whose needs are so out there that I probably won't afford them the consideration they would like
Perhaps some of the anti-PCers have seen the euphemism treadmill [rationalwiki.org] run long enough that they look at the history of "no, it's handicapped; no, it's disabled; no, it's physically challenged; no, it's differently abled; no, person first, it's person with a disability" and conclude that their "nee
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps some of the anti-PCers have seen the euphemism treadmill [rationalwiki.org] run long enough that they look at the history of "no, it's handicapped; no, it's disabled; no, it's physically challenged; no, it's differently abled; no, person first, it's person with a disability" and conclude that their "needs are so out there".
That would be my point. Sure, there's somebody somewhere being upset, but I don't remember anybody appointing them spokesperson for the entire handicapped movement. Personally,
Re:Biased (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a perfect example of why a one dimensional left/right -divide is utterly useless. I live in a globally very heavily to the left country (Finland) and adhere to many leftist ideas such as the universal health care and education systems we have here, as well as progressive taxation etc...
However, I do not buy into, nor support, any of the SJW crap about forcing people to feel/think/speak a certain way, and I say this as a part of one of the minorities (disabled since birth) that this crowd so often claims to be defending. There are loads of us. If you look at popular anti-SJW youtube chnalles such as Sargon of Akkad who has over 300 000 subscribers and over 74 000 000 views with numerous [youtube.com] videos [youtube.com] critizing and debunking this SJW thoughtcrime BS, and you take a look at the channel demographics [youtube.com], you'll note that the vast majority (55 %) of his viewership falls into the same category as the man himself (and me as well): a left-leaning libertarian. Ie. people who do not believe in letting the free markets decide over anything and everything, and believe the state serves as an important factor in making sure people's basic needs are met etc, but still at the same time maintain that individuals are free to say what they want, enjoy whatever substances they want etc... The authoritarian left of which you speak of is not just opposed by the right, but by a large quantity of us leftists ourselves, as one of the Sargon videos I linked above well puts it, the modern day SJW crowd has become very similar to the authoritarian right.
So no, there is no one 'The Left' anymore than there is one "The Right". The political field is much wider than that and we should all know that at this point. The political compass [politicalcompass.org] is a good tarting point to rid yourself of the tubelike vision that all members of left/right think alike or uniformly, I recommend checking it out if you haven't already,
Re: (Score:2)
Is someone telling you what you're allowed to think?
Re:Biased (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a white male. I am not allowed to tell a black woman that she's wrong. Even if she is. Else I may at best choose whether I'd want to be misogynistic first and then racist or whether I want to be berated about being racist first.
Just recently I discovered a masterpiece of a video where I was told that even THINKING that I could possibly be right when disagreeing with said black woman is already a no-go. Which strikes me a lot like the Christian tenet where "wanting to sin" is already a sin...
Re: (Score:3)
Allowed?
And I found a video where I was told the moon is a hologram. I did not immediately jump to, "THE MOON IS A HOLOGRAM!"
You sound a little paranoid, friend. So let me set your mind at ease: You think whatever you want, OK? If an SJW comes up to you on
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a white male leftist. I must have missed the memo on this one.
There are circumstances in which I'd be very reluctant to disagree with a black woman: when she's describing life as a black, a woman, or a black woman, or more generally when she's talking about something that she knows a lot about and I don't. Unfortunately, it would appear that some white males like to tell black females what their lives are like, and that may be where the idea got started.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute!
This implies you found a white female that you could tell her when she's wrong, I have a hard time believing you sir.
As any woman this: If a man speaks in the woods and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Give it time. I was you a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the moon IS a hologram?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "wanting" is a sin. Very incompatible with capitalism, where the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" is pretty much one of the big drives behind it, but "coveting" is the big nono in two of the 10 imperative rules given by the big boss himself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, watch the battle of the mods. Someone seems to have stirred the SJW army.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to explain why it has to be a fire?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your business is baking wedding cakes, selling sugary drinks, running a cigar lounge, or administering benefits for a national hobby and crafts chain. Then the Left is very much interested in minding your business for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Discrimination against gay customers is not minding your own fucking business, any more than discriminating against black customers would be.
Fucking up the lives of female employees by refusing to let their health insurance cover contraception is not minding their own business. (and the fact that you even have a health insurance system where an employer has that kind of control over what kind of cover their employees get is all kinds of fucked up, anyway. fucked up beyond any possibility of fixing. You y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this is not anger. this is appropriate use of correct english language for emphasis. this is contempt for a worthless specimen, allegedly of humanity.
and no, what makes you less credible is bringing up fuckwitted right-wing talking points as if they are in any way sane, rational, or reasonable. they mark you out as a cretin.
again, go fuck yourself you miserable cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
The wedding cake issue appears to have started badly and escalated from there. The findings of fact in the judgment described what appears to be extreme rudeness from the bakers, including publicizing the affair on Facebook, causing the lesbians further difficulties.
My take on this: if you're running a business, serve the public and obey the rules. If you have problems with that, reconsider starting a business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sussman didn't understand that the program would start with some biases even if wired at random. Minsky had to point out that the system "has them, it's just that you don't know what they are". There might be good reasons to start training from a random position, but Sussman was doing it for the wrong ones.
Bias is not a bit flag you set. There's good reason to expect that such randomness would lower the biases inserted by the programmer. Meanwhile there is no expectation that closing one's eyes will lower the number of people in a room.
And going back to the original story. One way to find and study the biases that you don't know are there is to remove or alter the biases that you do know are there.
Good. New York Times and CNN gave-up... (Score:1)
impartiality long ago with their support of Hillary and the entire "security inquiry" BS.
Re: Good. New York Times and CNN gave-up... (Score:1)
No. All they do is lie about Hillary. They hate her. Why do you think they give so much free advertising to tRump?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That's probably what the Jews said when Hitler was campaigning on making Germany great again.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to apply antitrust on FB (Score:4, Insightful)
FB has become too big and too powerful, and their arrogance is increasingly as well
Witness their reply
They can go "unintentional" all fucking day long and I still ain't gonna buy their motherfucking lie
Those fuckers have become so blatantly arrogant it is time to break FB into seperate companies, like what the court did to Standard Oil
Re: (Score:2)
CNN? Are you kidding? (Score:1)
CNN is all about making money. I thought they were going to rid themselves of socialist bias.
Re: (Score:2)
The lefties that run CNN arent socialists, but they really like the socialist narrative.
Well then... (Score:2)
All your bias belong to us!
A Welcome Change (Score:1)
I look forward to not seeing any differences on my nonexistent Facebook feed.
We actually had something like that (Score:4, Insightful)
For our public broadcasting network. The two major parties of the country pretty much hijacked it and held it occupied. And it had to be "unbiased". Which of course didn't mean that it can report whatever it wants, it meant that it had to report about the two parties equally. If there was a story about party A, they had to include one about party B. Even if there was nothing going on at party B at that moment. Which led to quite ridiculous headline news reports about some unknown party A backbencher visiting a retirement home or something, because something noteworthy actually happened with party B.
And of course this "unbiased" reporting didn't mean that you had to hear at all from any other parties...
We eventually found out that this kind of reporting is ridiculous. Hope you come to that conclusion soon, too.
Re: (Score:2)
NPR has always been controlled by the Democrats. It was set up by Congress and Lyndon Johnson back in the 1960's to deliver their message; management and editors name their own replacements to ensure the legacy continues.
The dust-up a few years ago wasn't about equal time, it was about very biased opinion pieces by people like Bill Moyers and Daniel Shore.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm glad they don't get to set the laws 'round over here. Not that our politicians are great, but frankly, your system sucks even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Like always... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Like always... (Score:4, Insightful)
Branding labels...and relative reality. (Score:2)
Branding things as liberal and conservative is a big game in itself because of the identity psychology involved; where people who believe themselves to be a member/consumer of the brand will actually bend themselves into all sorts of hypocrisies in order to maintain their belief.
Everybody wants to believe their brand is the righteous one; their tribe is number 1! It sure is a lot easier than betraying your tribe and switching....especially when there is no tribe and evolved background behavior pattern is n
Re: (Score:2)
You're certainly onto something, but there's another factor at work: at the grassroots level, the US political right is perhaps the least intelligent, most willfully-ignorant mass of humanity to exist in a First World nation. These are people who are truly committed to the idea that if they believe it, it must be so.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wow. The level of accuracy in that statement is astounding."
There...fixed that for you!
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
An obligation to be unbiased? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is quite amusing that Facebook is trying to pretend to be a source of unbiased news. I heard this story and thought, what kind of halfwit would expect even the pretense of unbiased news from Facebook? This sounds like a planted story where Facebook plants the expectation of being a neutral, unbiased source of news, and there's great rending of garments and theater when discovered this may not be the case.
Facebook is a profit-making entity devoted to increasing the fortunes of its top executives and itself. This story is an attempt to create the expectation that Facebook is some kind of source of unbiased news. It certainly can be a news outlet, like any other media outlet, but to suggest it's unbiased is like suggesting Fox or MSNBC is unbiased or any other person or groups of person are unbiased in their reporting.
However, pretending to be unbiased, and then reporting biased stories as unbiased gives one a tremendous amount of political power. Heck, simply being a source of information to people gives the disseminator a great deal of power.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real pressure is coming from major news organizations like the New York Times. Since this story has bubbled up, they've run multiple pieces largely critical of Facebook's business focus on one stop shopping for information and desire to be a news source.
Clearly this boils down to a business vs. business struggle, but by planting the seed of doubt about Facebook's murky willingness to manipulate content, they undermine Facebook's credibility as a news source. And being taken seriously seems to
Re: (Score:2)
Is there even such a thing as unbiased news?
Simple fact-checking becomes a bias if one political faction tends to lie more than the other.
Even striving to be unbiased can itsself be a form of bias.
From the charges... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And thus publishers of conspiracy theories, hyperbole and general crankery feel unfairly treated because Facebook is suppressing their stories.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Train the human editors? (Score:2)
Why is there any human intervention at all? If this is truly "trending" news then it should make the list solely based on a numbers based algorithm that looks at not only what the major news agencies are reporting but, more importantly, what is being discussed. Facebook keeps track of how many "likes" a story gets and how many Shares it gets and how many comments are posted to any given story.
That should be what determines what is trending. Not some collection of editors. What exactly are they going to "tra
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that every time somebody tries this approach, public relations drones have it hacked in no time, and topics they're being paid to pump mysteriously rise to the top.
Whether anybody wants to admit it or not, the best approach to judging what's actually trending includes some human component.
What's next? The Daily Show? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Grandma and Grandpa users you seem to discount often have enough life experience to put what they read in context, and judge it accordingly.
It's young know-it-all types who are most likely to get hosed in by biased coverage. They're especially vulnerable because they imagine their web-fu makes them immune to the PR and advertising tricks that fool them with such monotonous regularity.
Bragging rights (Score:2)
Zuck must read slashdot, he pretty much took my advice:
https://politics.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. It just means that your anti-vaxxer stories won't show up quite as often, or that 9/11 was an inside job and here's the proof type stuff won't show up so more.
Re: (Score:2)
People may want to hear what Glenn actually said on his radio show last Friday [soundcloud.com], and again for a little bit on Monday [soundcloud.com]. It's really quite an interesting hour of radio; Glenn was slamming other "conservatives" at the meeting for suggesting affirmative-action-like policies, was very impressed with Mr. Zuckerberg's goals, and was in 100% full support of Facebook being allowed to do whatever it wanted - it is, after all, a private company.