So I can't imagine they have lists of any news sources and rely entirely on user signals to determine the quality of a source.
An example: a few weeks ago I shared on my FB profile the Mozilla Foundation petition link for the EU copyright reform[1] and it was removed with this motivation:
"We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our Community Standards."
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/09/07/eu-copyright-r...
I'm pretty sure the algorithms use something more intelligent than a whitelist. A whitelist would be a major loophole in a spam algorithm.
Who's claiming this is malicious? In the first couple of replies to the tweet, there's talk about how this is probably due to a poorly designed anti-spam algorithm that's badly in need of a whitelist.
That said, Facebook is responsible for the actions of their algorithm. If their algorithm starts blocking critical articles, it's still egg in their face.
brianmcc, afandian, mrob, shortexpresso, cwkoss, golemiprague in this discussion at least
>> Who's claiming this is malicious? In the first couple of replies to the tweet, there's talk about how this is probably due to a poorly designed anti-spam algorithm that's badly in need of a whitelist.
> brianmcc, afandian, mrob, shortexpresso, cwkoss, golemiprague in this discussion at least
That's nonsense; those are just HN commenters. It's clear from the context of my comment that the "who" I was referring to was "educated tech journalists" and the people in the twitter thread.
The great-grandparent comment was basically criticizing a straw-man, and I was only pointing that out.
Just like as a thought experiment, wouldn't it make more sense to allow the post to go through and then prevent everyone on Facebook from seeing it? Obviously, FB doesn't do that, but wouldn't that be a more sensible approach if they did do that type of thing?