Facebook's Weird Pointless Auditless Audit Of Political Bias On Its Platform
from the but-why? dept
Facebook has continued to do the most Facebooky of Facebook things. Faced with almost entirely baseless claims of "anti-conservative bias" in how it moderates content, Facebook claimed to be doing something useful: bringing in a big outside law firm with big name partners (lead by former Republican Senator Jon Kyl) to analyze those claims. In response, they published... a whole lot of nothing. Kyl released an 8 page report that nearly anyone could have written (at much lower hourly rates, I'm sure). In it, it details areas that 133 different conservative users expressed concerns about how Facebook's platform operates.
But the report does literally nothing to say (or better yet, show) whether or not those concerns are valid. It just lists them out. Yes, the "conservatives" interviewed were "concerned" that hate speech designations might disproportionately impact them. Duh. But did it? The report doesn't say. Even more importantly, did such designations lead to disparate treatment for analogous behavior? Again, the report fails to say. it just lists out what "concerns" were raised. Which is about as totally fucking useless as you can imagine. In short, it's Facebook's standard operating procedure.
And, of course, this was announced in a meaningless way by former UK politician Nick Clegg, who is now Facebook's VP of Global Affairs and Communications. Seriously, read this blog post and tell me what useful information you can glean from it. It's nothing. It's nine paragraphs of "if we're doing something biased, we'll try to fix it, but we're still studying if we are." This is the weakest sauce from a company that only seems to know how to make weak sauce.
Not surprisingly, no one's happy about it. Conservatives hate it because it doesn't say that Facebook is biased against them. Liberals are annoyed because it doesn't say that the claims of bias are nonsense. That's why the whole thing is not just useless, but literally counterproductive. By simply stating the concerns, but making no effort to say whether or not they're accurate, this is like the worst kind of "view from nowhere" reporting. He says this. She says that. Which one is right? Who can tell?
Facebook is bending so far over backwards not to upset either side of the traditional political aisle that it's pissing off everyone. Just suck it up, do a real study, and show what the results actually say. Chances are they'll show absolutely no evidence of legitimate "anti-conservative bias," because to date, no credible studies have found any such evidence. But if the study did find something that would be useful to know. Instead, it releases this garbage.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, audit, jon kyl, nick clegg
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'... how many zeroes is that?'
So they ended up paying a law firm in order to write up a 'report' that tells them what they and everyone else already knew, that some conservatives worry that there might be anti-conservative bias on the platform. Sounds like they should have sprung for the deluxe report, wherein the investigators could have told them what color the sky is and whether or not water is wet.
I can only hope that they ended up paying dearly for that useless pile of documents, as stupidity that severe really should be painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: '... how many zeroes is that?'
You don't pay a retired senator for the report itself, you pay to make sure complaints don't turn into legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: '... how many zeroes is that?'
Lets ask something..
How does a Big Lawyer group make business..
By confusing the facts tot he point that no one knows Truth from fact from Lies.
What would you expect from them? the Fog of Truth? A Stand out Lie? They are the middle ground of Hiding everything so no one can decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting money where the mouths are
It may help in one way, though. By giving money away to conservatives it will create a conflict of interest. As more money goes into their pockets these same conservatives now have a reason to stay away from the fake conspiracy talk somewhat. At least a little bit, since having some of the controversy blowing around seems to benefit these folks.
For all the good reasons not to use Facebook, some folks seem to go to a lot of trouble to make up false reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Facebook should have actual "anti-conservative" bias weeks.
Say 1st full week of the month they actually suspend all conservative accounts.
Then drop these suspensions at the end of that week (leaving in the actual TOS suspensions).
That way they can compare/contrast the differences...but I am assuming they can learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but...
But that AC posted those YouTube videos that say this audit totally proves Facebook is discriminating against conservatives. I'm so confused. I guess I'll have to wait for Zof to come in and clear it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives don't want fairness, they want platforms to crack down and make left wing voices harder to find. They won't be happy until the internet resembles AM talk radio.
It's the projection they do oh so well, everything they accuse 'the left' of, is the things they either want to do to their enemies, or are actively doing behind the scenes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, it releases this garbage.
Why are you surprised? Isn't that SOP for Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...what part of this article made up entirely of Mike saying that he is not surprised and this is SOP for Facebook led you to believe that he is surprised and does not think this is SOP for Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bending over backwards? At this point, Facebook has bent over backwards and let conservatives use the spiked dildo without lube. The conservative response will then be an angry diatribe on why Facebook didn't also allow a castration without question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Facebook doesn't bend over backwards. Fb bends over forwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, backwards.
Some people have fetishes, and others take it up a notch.
Seriously, a fetish exists about involving sex and broken glass, of all things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it laughable that this leftist rag keeps denying there's no conservative BIAS when it's as clear as day.
It's like Code Pink protesting Bush for dropping bombs. Where were they when OBAMA dropped a bunch more and killing innocent people? Crickets. Yet No BIAS their ether. No nothing to look at here, they were treated equally. It's beyond laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, do you guys all have the same mental condition that stops you from behaving about kindergarten level and prevents you reading context, or do you just use the same dealer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you for admitting that it's clear as day that there's no conservative bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it's clear as day, how about you help out those floundering in the night and show some evidence? You could be a beacon of truth! Just need some actual verifiable truth.
I'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the bias is “as clear as day”, then surely you can point to examples of…
conservatives being punished for expressing ideas and opinions and values linked specifically to conservatism
for saying “I’m conservative”
…and any relevant statistics that prove your claim.
And a brief reminder: Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the only common denominator to all your problems is you
Let me guess bro. You have “no idea” why you keep getting banned from various social media platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it laughable that this leftist rag keeps denying there's no conservative BIAS when it's as clear as day.
Do you also find it laughable that your complaining gets flagged by the community every time you post your nonsense? Because that's probably what's happening on social media.
People are tired of you whiny little complainers bitching and moaning about constantly being the victim of something.
Put on your big boy pants and take a Midol already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, what’s “clear as day” to you may be clear as mud to others. Also, not everyone has seen the same evidence you have. If you have any clear evidence of anti-conservative bias, please share it with the rest of us. We’re all waiting patiently.
Second, of all the articles to criticize for failing to see this “obvious” anti-conservative bias, this is a strange choice. This is basically the one article that doesn't express particularly clear skepticism of the idea, and either way, it plays no role in what the point of the article is.
In case you haven’t read it, it says that Facebook’s “audit”, rather than drawing any conclusions or providing any new evidence, merely lists evidence we already knew: there are conservatives complaining that Facebook has or may have an anti-conservative bias that allegedly plays a role in various decisions like who gets banned. As noted in the article, this complete lack of… anything substantial upsets conservatives hoping for an admission of guilt, liberals hoping for a denial, and others wanting some additional clarity on the subject one way or the other. If you consider it leftist to acknowledge that not everyone agrees on whether or not Facebook’s decisions actually show an anti-conservative bias, and that this result satisfies no one and upsets pretty much everyone following the subject, then frankly you have no idea what “leftist” actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And for the record, a lot of people, myself included, don’t accept anecdotes as sufficient evidence (though that’s more than what you’re currently giving us, which is no evidence).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, context
"Yes, the "conservatives" interviewed were "concerned" that hate speech designations might disproportionately impact them. Duh. But did it?"
More importantly - if it did, then why? If there's more hate speech on the right, and more on the right are impacted as a result, that's exactly the right outcome. It's only a problem if hate speech aligned elsewhere politically is ignored, or if non-hate speech is falsely labelled.
It may well be that more people on the right are being treated as hateful, but if that treatment is justified, it's not Facebook that's the problem. This is the point that keep getting missed by the people whining - yes, it's unfortunate that your shop gets raided more than anybody else's after a burglary is reported, but that's where all the stolen goods are...
"this was announced in a meaningless way by former UK politician Nick Clegg, who is now Facebook's VP of Global Affairs and Communications"
Oh, that explains some of it. You're not going to get anything with teeth if it's led by the guy who sold his party's principles out to the Tories, giving them a "coalition" where they seemed to pay no heed to anything the Lib Dems did once they go the seat, and with the installment of Cameron above him led inevitably to the current mess we're in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About Google etal voter manipulation, Per Robert Epstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90y3MmuBZaU
13:08
Talks about how FB can influence the vote.
Was going to tell you about vaxxes and their link to autism, but i'll save it.
For a medical site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here, how about you have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh I "get" it.
Your a "joke" Account.
Every Nation eats the Paint CHIPS it DESERVES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That study is garbage.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/robert-epstein-google-bias-conservative-bogus-trump.ht ml
But, funny how you suck up anything you might try to grasp at to prove a point. You're really deep in the cluelessness Ed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Odd that not only is there no studies showing a link between vaccines and autism, there are studies that show no links between no-vaxxers and autism.
Interesting that studies show no link from either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Epstein's white paper was not peer-reviewed and was challenged by other researchers. Among the criticisms was that a small sample size was used to extrapolate conclusions about a population of millions and the lack of disclosure of the underlying methodology.
Perhaps Google should ask to see his algorithms. Just to make sure he's not biased, you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As mentioned by Mike and an AC, that study is full of problems, including lack of peer review, a small sample size, and failure to disclose the underlying methodology. The first means that no one had a chance to check it before it was publicized, the second means that it a) isn’t likely to be representative and b) has a very large margin for error, rendering it meaningless, and the third means that there’s no way of knowing if the sampling methodology used to select what is tested was biased among other things.
Plus, even if it shows how FB can influence the vote, it offers no evidence that it does or in what manner. At best, it may show that Google has anti-conservative bias, and that similar methods could lead to Facebook affecting the kind of information users receive in a biased manner. Given that this article is about the specific allegations that FB has an anti-conservative bias, that isn’t enough to prove those particular allegations, making it pretty irrelevant.
As for the thing about vaccines and autism, aside from the fact that that is a PRATT based on one study hat was discredited and retracted years ago due to numerous ethical issues, problematic methodology, small sample size, and clear bias and conflicts of interest on the part of the researcher, who has since lost his medical license, you’re right that it’s better to save that for a medical site, or at the very least, an article that is actually about vaccines and/or autism. This leads to a couple of important questions: why the hell would you even bring that up in the comments section on an article about anti-conservative bias on Facebook, and why bring it up at all if you have no intention of saying anything about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It did do something useful... for facebook. If called to testify, they have a report that can address any question asked. We found no evidence of ___ in that report (fill in the blank). Just because it was an "investigation" doesn't mean that it was intended to investigate anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight: This tiny conservative audit was absolutely terrible and useless, but the entire Russia conspiracy Mueller investigation costing millions of dollars and consuming the nation for more than a year, while objectively producing nothing of value gets a pass. Check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"costing millions of dollars and consuming the nation for more than a year, while objectively producing nothing of value"
You might want to get your head out of whatever echo chamber you usually frequent and check some objective facts. The investigation produced multiple convictions, and thanks to the Manafort evidence actually turned a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh? Really?
In view of the increasing prevalence of antisemitism on the left both in the US and the UK, adding "Duh," after the sentence "Yes, the "conservatives" interviewed were "concerned" that hate speech designations might disproportionately impact them," seems to be an expression of anti-conservative bias here at Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh? Really?
Citation for that?
"Duh" meaning "anyone paying any attention at all knows conservatives have been complaining about anti-conservative bias". So if it's biased, it's against ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The very concept of hate speech laws is flawed. They're nothing more than a violation of basic human rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want to know how I know that you didn't read the story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]