A top Republican wants Facebook to explain exactly how it chooses the news in its "trending" topics

[spanone]

so why doesn't that top republican ask fox 'news' the same question....???

The Commerce Committee, led by Republican John Thune of South Dakota, asked CEO Mark Zuckerberg to respond to anonymous allegations that former contractors suppressed news about conservatives and links to right-leaning web sites. The controversy, first published by Gizmodo, is now trending on Facebook.

In a letter on Tuesday, Thune demanded to know who is ultimately responsible for approving stories for the "trending" box on the Facebook home page; what steps

Facebook has taken to investigate the claims of bias; and how Facebook keeps records of its editorial decisions.
"Please provide a list of all news stories removed from or injected into the Trending Topics section since January 2014," Thune's letter said.

A Facebook spokesman confirmed that the company has received the letter and that Thune's questions are being reviewed. Beyond that, Facebook had no immediate comment.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/10/technology/facebook-news-senate/index.html

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Wait a - Republican is questioning

A Billionaire? Is that allowed?

[KPN]

2. Doesn't matter. He has no power.

Congress gave up any authority to ensure fairness in journalism when it passed the federal telecommunications act.

[edbermac]

3. Think he'll ask Rupert Murdoch how FAUX chooses its trending topics?

I have my doubts.

[maxrandb]

4. Sure

as soon as someone explains how AM Radio decides who is broadcast on our public airways

[gratuitous]

5. The Senate doesn't really have anything else to do

So, you know, they can posture for the folks back home on this, because it feeds their narrative of the poor, oppressed conservatives. Rush, George, Michael, Tucker, Sean, Bill, Tony, Bryan, and a host of others have all reliably told America that conservatives can barely get a word in edgewise in our national policy discussions!

[Hugin]

8. Yeah, why don't they start approving supreme court justices?

Pronto! Like it's their frick'n job.

[patricia92243]

6. I just counted five Republican/conservative type Trends in my feed. Others didn't have anything to

with politics.

Republicans get hysterical if Progressives have any outlet at all. MSNBC was Republican for most of the day. Because there was about 4 hours of Progressive news in the evening, they considered it a liberal outlet.

[Hugin]

7. Hey! This is BIG GUBBERMENT interference in a Biznus!

Back off, man.

[FlatBaroque]

9. Facebook is the new AOL.

They just feed you so much suck.

[Blue_Adept]

10. He'll understand it about as well as people here who can't figure out why they get campaign mailers

Such a basic lack of understanding of so much of how things function these days. Yes, the world is a bigger place, but a lot of it is that we're just exposed to more of it.

Sometimes I'm surprised some folks around these parts even know how to log into the site.

[lpbk2713]

11. Zuckerman has more money than God.

He'll find a tactful way to tell a South Dakota Republican what he can do with his demands.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

12. Thune is an arrogant, empty-suit gasbag

Some whiny conservative contractor stated that Facebook does this, which is a pile of crap considering they avoided posting things from Breitbart, Newsmax and Washington Insider (three bastions of accurate news reporting, right?) until they were corroborated with other news sources.

The fact that this maggot (Thune) can jump on this a day later like it's a national effing emergency speaks to just how empty-headed and thin-skinned (and pandering) he and the whole GOP is.

And as a son of South Dakota who eventually moved to more rational pastures, I say this: let my home state rot for all I care anymore.

[Brickbat]

13. This sounds awfully...regulatory.

[Ex Lurker]

14. I keep deleting all the celebrity items in my trending topics

Which is supposed to teach FB what kind of news stories you're interested in. It isn't working.

[Fritz Walter]

15. Meanwhile...

According to the Noose-weak article, not only is Facebook a sponsor of the Repuke National Convention, but

Peter Thiel, the PayPal founder who was one of the first investors in Facebook, is going to the convention in Cleveland as a California delegate pledged to Donald Trump.

Closing my PayPall account as soon as I finish this reply...

[Iggo]

16. If only there were some kind of doctrine that would ensure fairness.

Well, one can dream.

[spanone]

17. those were the days.....

fairness doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[just4lulzidk]

18. yo thune, here's the simple answer: they choose news based on it actually being news

and here's another little tip for you, bro: conservative news is not news, just like liberal news is not news

news is news, smart guy

this non-kerfuffle reminds me of the fake scandal when anti-tax tea party groups complained about the irs putting them under a microscope. gee, a bunch of anti-tax groups being investigated by a tax organization, who'd a thunk it?

now "conservative news" wants to complain about not being considered real news. gee, who'd a thunk it?

certainly not faux news fans...