3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

About 100 are willing to come forward and say something. So you concede the people stepping forward are well-educated (the well-educated know that "well-educated is hyphenated) and intelligent, yes?

 

I'm not sure why you think I believe this is a shocking revelation. Such a revelation is not shocking at all- assuming one pays attention to Facebook's obvious bias. Your healthy teeth comment is obviously a silly diversion, with no further addressing needed.

 

But alas, those who benefit from the bias will say it doesn't exist. And I suppose I should be proactive and say this isn't a shock, either, before you put yet even more words into my mouth. And of course, it should be noted that resorting to such tactics only indicates how weak a person realizes their argument is.

You’ve already been asked for examples of fb political bias.

 

Time for you to put up.

Trump supporters complaining about fake news being refused.

 

You just cant make this stuff up.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ve already been asked for examples of fb political bias.

 

Time for you to put up.

No, that won't do. I won't accept a homework assignment from you due to your inability to address my points, which were a direct response to your previous points. However, being a good sport, I graciously accept your surrender. You are done here. Have a nice day.

1 minute ago, Crazy Alex said:

No, that won't do. I won't accept a homework assignment from you due to your inability to address my points, which were a direct response to your previous points. However, being a good sport, I graciously accept your surrender. You are done here. Have a nice day.

You claim bias but can’t provide examples.

 

Yes, I’m done.

 

I already ran your nonsense to ground.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You claim bias but can’t provide examples.

 

Yes, I’m done.

 

I already ran your nonsense to ground.

No, you simply chose to avoid the reality of intelligent, well-educated people at Facebook having a problem with the liberal bias there. Pretending is a poor excuse for an argument. So is pretending you know better than them. But at least we can agree you're done. Funny now I knew it before you did.

Edited March 8, 20206 yr by Crazy Alex

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

No, you simply chose to avoid the reality of intelligent, well-educated people at Facebook having a problem with the liberal bias there. Pretending is a poor excuse for an argument. So is pretending you know better than them. But at least we can agree you're done. Funny now I knew it before you did.

You did not provide any evidence to support your (ridiculous) claim. We knew it before you didn't.

Edited March 8, 20206 yr by candide

3 minutes ago, candide said:

You did not provide any evidence to support your (ridiculous) claim. We knew it before you didn't.

I suppose if you ignore what actual employees say, your post could be considered true. But here's more:

 

https://slate.com/technology/2016/05/yes-facebook-is-biased-now-it-should-admit-it.html

 

And here are more people who worked at Facebook, detailing the bias there:

 

https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

 

Ridiculous claim? Of course not. Ridiculous to deny it? Obviously.

17 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I suppose if you ignore what actual employees say, your post could be considered true. But here's more:

 

https://slate.com/technology/2016/05/yes-facebook-is-biased-now-it-should-admit-it.html

 

And here are more people who worked at Facebook, detailing the bias there:

 

https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

 

Ridiculous claim? Of course not. Ridiculous to deny it? Obviously.

So one employee complains about the trend8ng section while others says the contrary and that's an evidence? The Senate has been investigating this alledged political bias for nearly two years and did not come up with evidence. The independent investigation did not either:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/20/facebook-makes-small-tweaks-following-anti-conservative-bias-report-theyre-unlikely-make-issue-go-away/

 

"The report, conducted by a Republican former senator and a law firm, did not present any evidence of bias, although it did conclude that Facebook has the potential to restrict free speech. It also detailed, at length, concerns from conservatives, including over the rejection of ads and a lack of transparency in how Facebook removes content. The report also outlined some changes Facebook has made, including loosening its policies around shocking and sensational content that would allow for some antiabortion ads showing infants born before full term."

 

 

2 hours ago, candide said:

So one employee complains about the trend8ng section while others says the contrary and that's an evidence? The Senate has been investigating this alledged political bias for nearly two years and did not come up with evidence. The independent investigation did not either:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/20/facebook-makes-small-tweaks-following-anti-conservative-bias-report-theyre-unlikely-make-issue-go-away/

 

"The report, conducted by a Republican former senator and a law firm, did not present any evidence of bias, although it did conclude that Facebook has the potential to restrict free speech. It also detailed, at length, concerns from conservatives, including over the rejection of ads and a lack of transparency in how Facebook removes content. The report also outlined some changes Facebook has made, including loosening its policies around shocking and sensational content that would allow for some antiabortion ads showing infants born before full term."

 

First, deal with your false statement about one employee claiming bias. Both sources I linked to cite multiple employees. That is what we call evidence.  Once you've addressed that, we can then go from there.

 

Actually, it's probably time to see how dug in you are on the issue. Is CNN liberally biased? MSNBC? ABC? How about Fox News? Any conservative bias there?

Edited March 8, 20206 yr by Crazy Alex

9 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I'll let Facebook employees handle that:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/technology/inside-facebook-employees-political-bias.html

 

Or perhaps you know better than them?

 

Your link is about a small fraction of Facebook employees who don't like their liberal colleagues.  It doesn't give any evidence of Facebook "editorially" favoring one side over the other.  I am under the impression that Facebook doesn't post stuff, it provides a platform for others to post stuff.

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Your link is about a small fraction of Facebook employees who don't like their liberal colleagues.  It doesn't give any evidence of Facebook "editorially" favoring one side over the other.  I am under the impression that Facebook doesn't post stuff, it provides a platform for others to post stuff.

First off, you're being dishonest with your characterization of the article. The over 100 employees willing to take a stand have a problem with political bias. I don't see any mention of them saying they don't like their liberal colleagues.

 

Second, no one said Facebook posts stuff. I would encourage you to really think about the word "editorially". Does Facebook edit? Yes or no?

Edited March 8, 20206 yr by Crazy Alex

On 3/6/2020 at 2:56 AM, gamb00ler said:

Ask Brad Parscale what he thinks of the role of FB in the last presidential election.  With your comment you've quite succinctly displayed your true nature and cognitive abilities.

Is that Joes brother, if so does he also have a silly voice?

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

First, deal with your false statement about one employee claiming bias. Both sources I linked to cite multiple employees. That is what we call evidence.  Once you've addressed that, we can then go from there.

 

Actually, it's probably time to see how dug in you are on the issue. Is CNN liberally biased? MSNBC? ABC? How about Fox News? Any conservative bias there?

First, start by reading the articles you link. They only quote statements from one former procurator claiming there is an anti-conservative bias in the "trending" section. In Gizmodo, they talk about "another procurator" expressing the same view. So there must be two people (not 100 as you claim in another post). One or two, it doesn't make much difference.

 

Slate.com, (which refers to a report in Gizmodo, so same source):

"One, a self-identified conservative, complained that this led to subtle yet pervasive liberal bias, since most of the curators were politically liberal themselves"

 

Gizmodo: (the original source) cites two people

"The former procurator", and

"Another former procurator"

It also states:

"Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news (from the "trending" section)

 

 

2 hours ago, candide said:

First, start by reading the articles you link. They only quote statements from one former procurator claiming there is an anti-conservative bias in the "trending" section. In Gizmodo, they talk about "another procurator" expressing the same view. So there must be two people (not 100 as you claim in another post). One or two, it doesn't make much difference.

 

Slate.com, (which refers to a report in Gizmodo, so same source):

"One, a self-identified conservative, complained that this led to subtle yet pervasive liberal bias, since most of the curators were politically liberal themselves"

 

Gizmodo: (the original source) cites two people

"The former procurator", and

"Another former procurator"

It also states:

"Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing conservative news (from the "trending" section)

 

 

sorry, curator, not procurator.

D%&#$ autocorrect

10 hours ago, candide said:

sorry, curator, not procurator.

D%&#$ autocorrect

You're right, I'm convinced. The left-leaning Slate is accusing Facebook of being liberally biased with no evidence whatsoever. Or let me guess. Slate isn't a leftist web site, right? ????

15 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

First off, you're being dishonest with your characterization of the article. The over 100 employees willing to take a stand have a problem with political bias. I don't see any mention of them saying they don't like their liberal colleagues.

 

Second, no one said Facebook posts stuff. I would encourage you to really think about the word "editorially". Does Facebook edit? Yes or no?

So somewhere less than 0.25% of Facebook employees.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/

 

And let let me make a wild guess, they’re not the top 0.25% high performers.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So somewhere less than 0.25% of Facebook employees.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/

 

And let let me make a wild guess, they’re not the top 0.25% high performers.

I don't know, are they? Do you have some personnel records you'd like to share? Is there any liberal bias in the media at all?

Just now, Crazy Alex said:

I don't know, are they? Do you have some personnel records you'd like to share? Is there any liberal bias in the media at all?

I don’t need personnel record so beyond Facebooks staff count to work out your tiny (less than 0.25%) of people who seem not to ‘fit in’.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t need personnel record so beyond Facebooks staff count to work out your tiny (less than 0.25%) of people who seem not to ‘fit in’.

So liberalism is so intolerant, fair-minded people don't fit in. Got it.

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

So liberalism is so intolerant, fair-minded people don't fit in. Got it.

Not all.

 

Less than a quarter of one percent complaining about their work environment is pretty good in my experience.

 

Every office I’ve ever worked in has had two topics of conversation competing with each other for popularity: Griping about the company/co-workers and the health of the pension fund.

 

The latter a salve for the former.

 

But as a general observation, people doing well at work tend not to moan about the environment they work in.

 

That said, when you come along trying to make a case based on less than 0.25% of employees you are unquestionably focusing on what to any practical sense is an insignificant number.

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

You're right, I'm convinced. The left-leaning Slate is accusing Facebook of being liberally biased with no evidence whatsoever. Or let me guess. Slate isn't a leftist web site, right? ????

The usual deflection. Both articles cite one guy only. Gizmodo's article talks about another one without quoting him. That's all.

From the Slate article you linked:

"One, a self-identified conservative, complained that this led to subtle yet pervasive liberal bias,"

Edited March 9, 20206 yr by candide

21 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

First off, you're being dishonest with your characterization of the article. The over 100 employees willing to take a stand have a problem with political bias. I don't see any mention of them saying they don't like their liberal colleagues.

 

Second, no one said Facebook posts stuff. I would encourage you to really think about the word "editorially". Does Facebook edit? Yes or no?

Facebook has over 40,000 employees, so 100 is a small fraction.  Plus, as Candide pointed out, the number could be as little as two, and they only have claims, not evidence, of liberal bias.

 

So far you have provided no convincing evidence to support your claim that Facebook is know "for leaning left, editorially", as you posted.

On 3/6/2020 at 12:49 AM, jesimps said:

Facebook, the lefty propoganda machine.

Hardly they got Trump elected and now you knock it. How about some humility and gratitude !

On 3/6/2020 at 6:14 AM, Tug said:

Ah it’s just Donald begging for money in a tricky way who would have thought lol

He has raised more money than any other. Why would he need to beg for money?

Some inflammatory posts and the replies have been removed.