IMPORTANT: Facebook is turning up and down the traffic dials to news and opinion sites based on internal partisan concerns, raised by lobbyists working for Joel Kaplan (of Kavanaugh fame).
This story reveals that: algorithmic changes were discussed with impacts to SPECIFIC publishers in mind.
Original goal, to dial down fighting on Facebook, chucked when it was found to hurt conservative sites. Algo reworked to punish progressive news orgs instead.
We dug in on reporting on it because we were one of the publishers —SHOWN IN A SLIDE DECK TO FB EXECUTIVES—to be ultimately harmed.
But who else?
And who's next?
If this is what they're willing to do to US publishers, what do you think they're willing to do to increase their reach in countries under an autocratic regime?
The impact of conservatives being given a boost by Facebook (and not dialed back even when they pub incendiary/conspiratorial junk) is a very real problem in our election. As @kevinroose has written about: nytimes.com/2020/08/27/tec…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I am enraged. Excellent reporting from WSJ's @dseetharaman and @EmilyGlazer finds that Facebook engineers—with sign-off from Zuckerberg himself—retooled their algorithm to throttle traffic to high-value progressive news orgs, @MotherJones IN PARTICULAR wsj.com/articles/how-m…
2/ Last year, @MonikaBauerlein and I wrote about how Facebook's changes to its algorithm hurt legit news orgs as it pumped right-wing disinfo machines. We used the impact on our traffic as an example: motherjones.com/politics/2019/…
BUT
3/ We did NOT know that they were targeting us in particular.
We suspected, and has since been shown in this WSJ piece and elsewhere, that they made these changes b/c conservatives had worked the refs. ITS SO MUCH WORSE.
1/ CA/SF voters. There are 26 combined ballot propositions before us. As an officer in a 501(c)3 I am allowed to make recommendations on these measures. Follow along for my thinking as I fill out my own ballot.
2/ Starting with CA propositions. Most, to me, are an easy call, but there are always stumpers. The first, Prop 14, bond issuance for stem cell research is one. Science good! Stem cell research, so promising! But... latimes.com/california/sto…
3/ Argument against Prop 14 is that it isn't constructed to have adequate oversight as to allocation of funds—especially fraught in budget crunch. But otoh, don't we need to ride hard for science? latimes.com/opinion/story/…
Enormous bench of talent in CA Dem politics waiting for DiFi to retire.
Beyond DiFi, Democratic congressional leadership should do something other than pure seniority for committee chairs.
Experience matters, sure. But not the the exclusion of everything else.
DiFi being one of the first women to be elected to the Senate matters. Her championing of gay rights and the environment matter. Authoring the assault weapons ban matters.
But those are ancient to most voters, if they know about them at all. She's hurting her legacy.