Your examples are not what happens though. What happens is promoting stories favorable to democrat politicians, hiding stories favorable to republican politicians, covering up "refugee" crimes, reporting completely made up "evil right wing death squad nazis" doing evil anti-refugee things that never happened, etc, etc.

> covering up "refugee” crimes

This. Facebook agreeing to work with German government to do something about “racism” comments in German version (read: FB users talking about Cologne attacks that weren’t covered by mainstream press at all for weeks). FB blocking links to a mainstream respectable media’s article about freedom of speech in Czech version.

I have no doubt that FB doesn’t consider it bias. They’re righteous and seeing that attitude all over the supposedly “liberal” sphere is frightening.

Because when has hyperbolic stories about immigrants ever gotten out of hand?

I don't know, when? And what exactly is "out of hand", and how out of hand does it need to be before censorship becomes good?

In Australia. You might want to search for "The Children Overboard Affair".

I don't follow. That story got out of hand? In what way? And again, how out of hand does a story need to get to make censorship good?

Try looking it up first.

Please don't perpetuate spats.

Sorry. It's just that a Google search would have taken him to this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair

Which was a release of wrong information that demonised refugees for supposedly throwing their children into the water to blackmail the Howard government into letting them into Australia. This was released by Peter Reith, but it was subsequently revealed it was nothing of the sort, but it helped create a moral panic that boosted the electoral prospects of the Howard government, who subsequently won. It wasn't checked carefully by media organizations who ran the story - so it indeed got out of hand.

Which answered his question.

A google search did take me to that, which doesn't answer my question at all. A false story is not a story getting out of hand. It is a false story. And it doesn't address the main question of "how out of hand does a story need to be to make censorship good?".

Really, please stop, both of you.

I did. Now please explain what you mean. Acting as though anyone who can not read your mind is some sort of mentally defective reject not worth bothering with is in rather poor taste.

I would, but your response is so aggressive I think I'll pass this time.

If you would, then you would have. You didn't the first time I asked, or the second, why pretend you would the third time?

Please stop. Comments here need to be civil and substantive, and yours are crossing both lines.

Sure, however the issue is how does this news 'bubble up'?

Because the International Facebook community are sharing and commenting on it organically, or because a group of liberal curators decide that's what Facebook users will see in the trending column?

As far as I understand, it's not the news that's being promoted (let's display this article on global warming, for example) that's the issue here, it's the news that's being suppressed (this Donald Trump post is getting popular, but I don't like his views so let's not display it).

Isn't the newsfeed you see on Facebook specific to the country you're from?