Breaking: Ted Cruz Just Took Mark Zuckerberg To The Woodshed Over Censoring Conservatives On National TV

BOOM!!!  While Facebook was throttling the ability of conservative pages to drive traffic to conservative news and opinion websites into oblivion they were happily allowing pages – even fake pages – to drive users to websites that they approved of.

That likely explains why the largest Black Lives Matter page was fake and running a scam defrauding users of their money, and yet they were weren’t restricted by Facebook’s algorithms.

CNN has reported that a page titled “Black Lives Matter” had grown to 700,000 giving it twice as many fans as the official Black Lives Matter page.  The page was owned by a middle-aged white male living in Australia.

But it gets even worse.  The page was used to drive fans to online fundraisers and raised more than $100,000.  At least some, if not all, of that money made its way tin Australian bank accounts.

Paypal, Patreon, Donorbox, and Classy have since suspended the page from it’s online pay services.

According to CNN:

“Only after almost a week of emails and calls between CNN and Facebook about this story did Facebook suspend the page, and then only because it had suspended a user account that administrated [sic] the page.”

This means that even when one of the “trusted news sources” (as defined by Facebook) gives them evidence of a page spreading fake information and actively defrauding Facebook’s users in the process, Facebook takes more than a week to investigate.

Not so with the pages of conservatives, who are offered no recourse once Facebook decides their message doesn’t meet the social media giant’s approved political point of view.  What other business doesn’t offer a customer service representative for clients who spend tens of thousands of dollars – or more – annually working with that company to build their businesses together?

What other company could even get away with that level of such shabby treatment of their business partners. Let me answer that.  Aside from the social media giants no other companies would dare. That is the benefit of running a monopoly.

This story only confirms the questions raised by conservatives about the integrity of Facebook’s commitment to ignore ideology or politics when connecting people.

Under questioning from Ted Cruz, less than a month ago, as to whether Facebook was a open forum or a publisher, Facebook Global Policy Management Head Monika Bickert told Congress:

The mission of our company is to connect people. We do not look at ideology or politics.  We want people to be able to connect and to share who they are… We do not have any policy about political ideologies that affect our platform.

Conservative publishers that use Facebook’s platform – those of us that are left, anyway – know that’s simply not true and Zuckerberg’s inability, or unwillingness, to answer the same question from Ted Cruz just moments ago is proof of that.

The Cambridge Analytica data breach, as serious as it is, in nothing more than a smokescreen for the greater threat that Facebook’s censorship poses to the future of our freedoms.  Do not allow your representatives to turn Zuckerberg’s time in the barrel into a regulatory debate.

Source: fbnewscycle.com

EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Facebook Engagement Declined By 45 Percent Following Algorithm Change

Engagement on Donald Trump’s Facebook posts has dropped by approximately 45 percent since the platform introduced a new algorithm change, following a year of pressure from left-wing employees and the mainstream media for “allowing” the President to win the 2016 general election.

In January, Facebook introduced a major change to its newsfeed algorithm. In a post, CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that the change aimed to give greater emphasis to posts from “friends, family and groups” and less to “businesses, brands and media.” The change was followed by a promise to promote what Facebook calls “broadly trusted” news sources on the platform.

In the month following the algorithm change, engagement on Donald Trump’s Facebook posts dropped sharply. Total engagement dropped by approximately 45 percent, according to data from leading social media analytics firm NewsWhip. In an email to Breitbart News, a representative of Newswhip confirmed that Breitbart’s reading of the data was accurate.

Average engagement on Trump’s Facebook posts following the algorithm change also dropped significantly, by approximately 38 percent.

The decline in engagement on Trump’s Facebook cannot be attributed to a drop in posting frequency on the part of Trump. In the 13 days prior to Facebook’s algorithm change (28 Dec – 10 Jan), Trump made 67 posts, with no significant drop in engagement. After the change, Trump posted at roughly the same rate – between 59 and 67 posts in each 13-day period, but was still met with the dramatic decline in engagement seen above.

When compared to high-profile Democratic political figures, Trump’s engagement appears to have been hit particularly badly. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement.

Even if they did face a similar decline, it would not be comparable in terms of impact. As the graph above shows, they are far less successful on Facebook than President Trump, which means they have far less to lose. Currently, any change that reduces the reach or engagement of public figures on Facebook will disproportionately affect Trump when compared to public figures with much lower engagement.

In a comment to Breitbart News, Facebook appeared to acknowledge that their algorithm change might have caused Trump’s engagement numbers to fall. A Facebook representative highlighted the following section of their post announcing the algorithm change:

Pages may see their reach, video watch time and referral traffic decrease. The impact will vary from Page to Page, driven by factors including the type of content they produce and how people interact with it.

Facebook’s algorithm change came after a year of pressure from the mediapoliticians, and employees inside Facebook following the election of Donald Trump. Facebook was accused of helping Trump win the election, spreading Russian propaganda and fake news, and creating partisan echo chambers.

In a piece entitled “Inside Facebook’s Two Years of Hell,” Wired highlighted the threat from legislators with a foreboding quote from Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. “You’ve created these platforms, and now they’re being misused, and you have to be the ones to do something about it … or we will.”

Mark Zuckerberg drew curiosity from the media when he said recent changes to the platform would cause users to spend less time on Facebook — and that this was intentional. Why would any social media company want users to spend less time on their platform? At the time, Slate suggested that the company had been so battered by a year of public scrutiny over its political influence that it was now choosing to abdicate that influence by making the platform less lucrative for political figures.

There’s only one snag – punishing public figures across their platform will disproportionately affect those who rely on it the most. In an environment where the mainstream media is stacked against their movements, that is usually going to be populist candidates like Donald Trump.

Facebook can expect scrutiny given Donald Trump’s appointment of Brad Parscale as his 2020 election campaign chief. Parscale was the Trump campaign’s digital guru in 2016, and credited Facebook as the crucial factor in Trump’s victory. If Trump’s reach and engagement are being disproportionately cut back on the world’s biggest social network, it’s unlikely to escape his notice.

Source: www.breitbart.com

Facebook Ads VP Backtracks on Russian Interference Comments

Zuckerberg

Facebook’s VP of Advertising has backtracked on comments he made recently relating to the use of Facebook by Russian operatives to sow discord amongst Americans.

WIRED reports that Rob Goldman, Facebook’s vice president of advertising, has backtracked on recent comments he made relating to Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian operatives for interfering in the 2016 U.S. election via social media.

Mueller’s indictment document was 37 pages long, 35 of which mentioned Facebook specifically, putting the social media website right at the center of the political debate. Mueller’s document claimed that Russian operatives used platforms such as Facebook to promote memes, plan rallies, create fake accounts and generally pit American citizens on the left and right against each other in order to create chaos within the country.

Only hours after the indictment was released, Rob Goldman took to Twitter to clarify some of the issues raised in Mueller’s document. Goldman made a number of claims including one that was retweeted by President Trump himself. Goldman tweeted, “I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.”

Goldman clarified what he believed the Russians aimed to achieve with their use of Facebook tweeting that they were attempting to divide America and that so far it seems to be working,

Initially, it seemed that other executives at Facebook approved of Goldman’s string of tweets with a Facebook VP named Andrew Bosworth even retweeting Goldman’s thread. But shortly after President Trump’s notice of the tweets, it seems that Facebook suddenly took issue with Goldman’s messaging. Facebook VP of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan released an official statement on Goldman’s tweets saying “Nothing we found contradicts the Special Counsel’s indictments. Any suggestion otherwise is wrong.”

WIRED talked to a Facebook executive about what they believed Russia’s aim was with their social media misinformation campaign. The executive replied, “I don’t think anyone at Facebook can say definitely one way or another.” They continued, “We are a tech company. Why would we have the answer? I wouldn’t trust us if we said we did.” Goldman himself then took to Facebook’s internal communication network to explain his tweets to his colleagues saying:

I wanted to apologize for having tweeted my own view about Russian interference without having it reviewed by anyone internally. The tweets were my own personal view and not Facebook’s. I conveyed my view poorly. The Special Counsel has far more information about what happened [than] I do—so seeming to contradict his statements was a serious mistake on my part.

To those of you who have reached out this weekend to offer your support, thank you. It means more than you know. And to all of you who have worked so hard over the last six months to demonstrate that we understand our responsibility to prevent abuse on Facebook — and are working hard to do better in the future — my deepest apologies.

It seems that Facebook and Goldman are now in full damage control as Mueller’s investigation focuses further on the social media platform. How Facebook will continue to deal with Mueller’s investigation remains to be seen.

Source: www.breitbart.com