> Is there any evidence to support this assertion and that Facebook isn't merely showing you information that is palatable to you?

I'm not sure why intent matters. The point is I can't turn it off and see all the information if I wanted to. My access to information is being artificially restricted.

> 2) If so, do you wish to impose this expectation on everyone else?

This is completely unnecessary. Just need an option in preferences: Use algorithmic feed [Yes] [No].

Edit: Like privacy, this is another case where the ad-driven business model is in conflict with the best interests of the user. Ad-supported algorithmic feeds optimize not for truth, educational value, or even user happiness, but for engagement. This often means eliciting a strong emotional reaction - positive or negative. In effect algorithmic feeds create the informational equivalent of how grocery stores put high-margin junk and processed foods in the high traffic areas. They want you to buy this stuff - your health be damned.

Search for “facebook hires censors” on the search engine of your choice.

The story was broadly covered by sources across the political spectrum.

And in answer to your two questions: Yes, I expect news sources to have journalisic integrity, even if the truth is not popular.

I can't find anything from a remotely unbiased source on "facebook hires censors" other than this: https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors

Which is basically just content monitoring that AI can't do... child exploitation, hate speech, gore, pornography, etc.

I think it's a pretty damn right-wing slippery-slope you're traversing if you assume that's equivalent to "censorship of rogue ideas"

“Hate speech” seems to cover a pretty wide spectrum these days.

Fair enough because I agree, nevertheless it’s a stretch to accuse The Social-Network Powers That Be of essentially a left-wing conspiracy

The bias makes sense and I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. Where are the censors hired?

Californians have a different idea about hate speech than people from Alabama who have a different view of hate speech than someone from Bangalore.

So if you hire your censors from California you are going to see right wing rogue ideas considered hate speech.

I know tastes differ across space, but there must be some minimum standard that would satisfy almost everyone

Of course there is a minimum standard - but the problem is to have effective censors you need to give them a degree of leeway/self-judgement and in a politically charged environment this will lead to bias.

>Before the election, we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. For example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag, which originated with Wikileaks’ publication of thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account. The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118 original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website. In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag. Approximately one quarter (25%) of those tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches. As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Twitter openly admits to censorship. They censored legitimate journalism for political reasons.

Source: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-...

I like how they justify it by claiming that the tweets were automated. How so? I saw lots of real humans complaining that their tweets were blocked.

I think the logic goes like this: "We wouldn't tweet that. Nobody we know would tweet anything like that. Therefore, this is not from real people." Maybe the Twitter employees need to get out a bit more, perhaps taking a lengthy visit to rural Oklahoma or West Virginia.

There may be some feelings of guilt here. To deal with that, just claim that the tweets aren't from real people.

Is censorship of argumentum-ad-nauseam bullshit really censorship, though?

Where is the "argumentum-ad-nauseam bullshit"? I'm didn't post this to argue about politics or what your political beliefs are, just that they do in fact, censor.

The thing about Hillary’s emails was COMPLETELY INFLATED by her opposition, since she was not the first person by a long shot to use a private email server. Inflation = distortion = bullshit.

Garden-variety political flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this, regardless of your politics.

Again, I wasn't here to debate your political opinions, I was just simply pointing out that Twitter does censor, and providing a US .gov sourced example.

Try Reddit for your garbage opinions.

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>Lack of trust is a bullshit argument. It's basically the Conspiracy Fallacy

Or you know, what actual real life and political experience points to, and labelling it "conspiracy" is the "jumping to conclusions fallacy".

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

Was that supposed to be hard?

In this day and age, apparently!