Internal Facebook Documents Reveal Suppression of Conservative Sites
Without the suppression tools, Breitbart’s traffic would increase “an estimated 20%, Washington Times’ 18%, Western Journal’s 16% and Epoch Times’ by 11%.”
The left says Facebook doesn’t do enough to combat fake news and hate. That Facebook “whistleblower” claims no one did anything to those awful news websites peddling hate and neo-Nazis.
It’s weird how people only name conservative news outlets when talking about fake news and hate-filled reports. It’s stranger that websites deemed left-wing never appear in these conversations.
The left and the government also use the argument to grip social media platforms like Facebook with their iron fist and take control.
The Wall Street Journal reviewed internal documents that contradict the left and the supposed internal documents the “whistleblower” has in her possession.
Facebook used “Sparing Sharing” tool after the 2016 election to target “hyperposters.” The “Informed Engagement” tool “reduced the reach of posts that people were more likely to share if they hadn’t read them.”
Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s global head of public policy and Bush II’s former deputy chief of staff, told everyone they should not implement “the initiative too aggressively.” Mark Zuckerberg watered it down, but then something happened:
In 2019, Facebook data scientists studied the impact of the two tools on dozens of publishers based on their ideologies, according to the documents reviewed by the Journal.
The study, dubbed a “political ideology analysis,” suggested the company had been suppressing the traffic of major far-right publishers, even though that wasn’t its intent, according to the documents. “Very conservative” sites, it found, would benefit the most if the tools were removed, with Breitbart’s traffic increasing an estimated 20%, Washington Times’ 18%, Western Journal’s 16% and Epoch Times’ by 11%, according to the documents.
People inside the company warned those in charge they should not even use these tools in a test run.
“We could face significant backlash for having ‘experimented’ with distribution at the expense of conservative published,” wrote one researcher.
Then George Floyd died in May 2020. One employee wrote on the chat board, “Get Breitbart out of News Tab.” (I worked at Breitbart from 2011 – 2016)
The employee provided examples to justify banning Breitbart, even though the articles only stated the truth:
News Tab is a feature that aggregates and promotes articles from various publishers, chosen by Facebook. The employee’s message included screenshots of headlines on Breitbart’s website, such as “Minneapolis Mayhem: Riots in Masks,” “Massive Looting, Buildings in Flames, Bonfires!” and “BLM Protesters Pummel Police Cars on 101.”
The employee said they were “emblematic of a concerted effort at Breitbart and similarly hyperpartisan sources (none of which belong in News Tab) to paint Black Americans and Black-led movements in a very negative way,” according to written conversations on Facebook’s office communication system reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Many other employees chimed in to agree.
The higher-ups chose to keep Breitbart in the News Tab because of “potential political blowback.”
The employees are ticked at Zuckerberg because he won’t muzzle right-wing websites because of potential public relation issues:
Other documents also reveal that Facebook’s management team has been so intently focused on avoiding charges of bias that it regularly places political considerations at the center of its decision making.
Facebook employees, as seen in a large quantity of internal message-board conversations, have agitated consistently for the company to act against far-right sites. In many cases, they have framed their arguments around Facebook’s enforcement of its own rules, alleging that Facebook is giving the right-wing publishers a pass to avoid PR blowback. As one employee put it in an internal communication: “We’re scared of political backlash if we enforce our policies without exemptions.”
Babies. Absolute babies. Zuckerberg is right. He would face a PR nightmare because non-leftists would point out that Facebook never has a problem with left-wing websites and people.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Well slap me and call
Is anyone surprised?
How very Pro-Choice of them. All’s fair in lust and abortion, I suppose.
I’M FLABBERGASTED! HOW ON EARTH?!
Also, the world is round.
Also, the earth is round.
This is Big Tech engaged in suppression of dissenting views.
Well color me surprised and hang me on the wall
A huge part of this problem is people who grew up without ever being taught the difference between facts and opinion and the basic concept that they should be treated differently.
IOW, this is a consequence of our education system.
“Facebook employees, as seen in a large quantity of internal message-board conversations, have agitated consistently for the company to act against far-right sites.”
These are the Silicon Valley snowflakes who had total emotional meltdowns in company-wide meetings after they learned who won the 2016 election.
Strange the the whistleblowers are complaining that “hate” sites aren’t being censored enough and of course their definition of “hate” includes disagreeing with them and what they push!
This is only “NEWS” to people who limit their news sources to mainstream legacy media.
Everyone else is aware of the censorship and bias of the major tech companies.