Posted on 05/10/2016 11:57:13 AM PDT by GonzoII
The US Senate Commerce Committee—which has jurisdiction over media issues, consumer protection issues, and internet communication—has sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg requesting answers to questions it has on its trending topics section. The letter comes after Gizmodo on Monday reported on allegations by one former news curator, who worked for Facebook as a contractor, that the curation team routinely suppressed or blacklisted topics of interest to conservatives. That report also included allegations from several former curators that they used a “injection tool” to add or bump stories onto the trending module.
The letter asks that Facebook “arrange for your staff including employees responsible for trending topics to brief committee staff on this issue.” The letter was signed by Chairman for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator John Thune (R) from South Dakota.
Some of the letter’s questions include:
1) Please describe Facebook’s organization structure for the Trending Topics feature, and the steps for determining included topics. Who is ultimately responsible for approving its content?
2) Have Facebook news curators in fact manipulated the content of the Trending Topics section, either by targeting news stories related to conservative views for exclusion or by injecting non-trending content?
(Excerpt) Read more at gizmodo.com ...
I think this should be more an issue of false advertising or fraudulent business practices.
They can do anything they want, but they cannot pretend as of it is unbiased as it is fraud on customers.
It’s fraud.
I hope this isn’t ZOT worthy. I simply do not understand what business Congress has in the way that a website operates it’s business. If they come crawling in here trying to dictate content we’re all going to have a shit fit.
RICO
“http://www.plyboo.com/plyboodirect/";
Can you spell RICO? These people are trying to influence elections fraudulently!
it’s free to users. Perhaps the advertisers have a problem with it but, again, without a lawsuit from one of them I’d say that there shouldn’t be a leg for Congress to stand on.
Please disregard “http.” Somehow I didn’t properly “copy” your post.
Whether we like it or not, the First Amendment also applies to Facebook.
In my opinion, The US Senate Commerce Committee and Senator John Thune are pissing down our leg and telling us it is raining.
Do not forget it is an election year and the Uni-party is trying to convince their base that they are conservative and really care.
However, I think most normal people see right through them.
Yep. Sounds like they deliberately picked a fight where they knew they’d get laughed out of court so they can tell the rubes (that’s how they see us) and say, “Gee, I tried to uphold [swelling patriotic music] Good Conservative Principles, but that meenie poopiehead activist judge wouldn’t let me!”... all while meaningful and winnable battles are lost for lack of effort.
Pandering to the base in an election year. Stupid GOP.
GOP makes themselves look fascist, along with the rest of conservatives.
But it is not too unlike what the MSM does in sometimes more and less subtle ways.
Methinks Cyberman understands the politics of Washington. And alas, most State Capitals.
I detest Zuckerberg and his destructive website.
But Senate grandstanders are worse.
>... all while meaningful and winnable battles are lost for lack of effort.
And, don’t forget the power Congress has over the Judiciary....Yet another front they refuse to battle upon, nor flex their LEGAL Powers.
I hope this isn’t ZOT worthy. I simply do not understand what business Congress has in the way that a website operates it’s business. If they come crawling in here trying to dictate content we’re all going to have a shit fit.
***************************************************************
This (F.R.) is a privately owned site, the same deal with FakeBook but the owner here does not claim to be neutral, he proudly states that F.R. is a conservative web site and liberalism is not allowed here.
The valid concern is whether they are committing consumer fraud: offering one thing, but giving another.
If they openly declared: “If you sign up with us, then we will decide what content you may have,” then - and only then - would I agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
