Facebook Determined To Fix Bias Against Conservatives By…Wait For It…Enlisting The Help Of Eric Holder!

There is no Facebook bias against conservatives.

Of course he is very conservative. Back in 2/09 when these Commies from the Tea Party said he has unfit to be A.G.; GWB’s allies (2 of the most Reagan loving conservatives in America) Graham and McCain attacked them for being “Xenophobic, white supremacists, racists”! The Tea Party Commies got the word and stopped fighting Eric. Who as Johnny predicted turned out to be America’s best AG since Janet Reno.

If the Bush boys say he is conservative – HE IS CONSERVATIVE! AND, AS JOHNIE SAID ,WAS A WONDERFUL A.G.!

How can anyone question Facebook’s clearly honest “Pasionate Conservative” hiring?

How about not censoring freedom of speech, censor the terrorists, kiddie porn people, those that make death threatsof any kind, allow people to censor what and whom they personally do not want to hear. No one has the right to not be offended, they do have the right to not listen. A simple mute feature for those that you consider personally offensive. Having to have anyone else do this for you is weak and stupid.
Greg: And what evidence would that be? I was following Cruz during the election I should have seen all his tweets, as well as the other conservatives I was following, I had to go to their page to read them.
It happens on google, twitter and faceplant.

@Greg: I don’t suppose you heard the testimony of Diamond and Silk or other conservative sites. Of course not; that would contradict your liberal biases.

The anti-conservative bias is a bullshit claim. 

Really. So you think that the same thing the physically happens on the streets, on campuses or on television cannot possibly happen on Facebook. OK. Good luck with a life of willful ignorance.

They don’t want their social media platform to become a tool for filling people’s heads up with disinformation.

That is absolute 100% horse shit. I do have a few liberal friends left on Facebook (that haven’t un-friended ME) and the trash they post is unrestricted. The difference is that Conservatives don’t pitch a twisted panties bitch over reading something they don’t like.

It IS indeed their platform. However, if they want or to be a Media Matters/Daily Kos/Huffington they should be honest about it.

@Greg: Greg?

And what evidence would that be?

Why do you insult yourself that way? It’s one thing to be stupid, but it’s entirely something else to stand up and announce it. Why don’t you sit down and keep silent and hope no one else notices?

@Redteam: Greg will never appreciate free thought or speech. Opinions differing from a liberal echo chamber are a danger to his form of socialist fascism.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/20/11-year-old-docked-points-for-not-bashing-trump/
Im sure he thinks this dad should lose his parental rights, the kids given to a gay couple who will benadryl them and drive off a cliff.

@Greg:

(Greg #1) There is no Facebook bias against conservatives.

(Greg #4)And what evidence would that be?
The anti-conservative bias is a bullshit claim…

Given that you seem to consider anything with a left of center slant as ‘normal’ and everything else as a right-wing conspiracy theory, not that terribly surprising.

This covers more than just FB, but I guess what you’re trying to tell us is that none of this actually happened?

Project Veritas recently had caught Twitter staffers admitting on hidden camera that they had been censoring conservatives…The staffers had justified it by claiming the accounts had been automated if they had words such as “America” and “God.” In 2016, Twitter had attempted to manipulate election-related tweets using the hashtags “#PodestaEmails” and “#DNCLeak.” The site also restricts pro-life ads from Live Action, but allows Planned Parenthood advertisements.

A 2016 Gizmodo story warned of Facebook’s bias. It detailed claims by former employees that Facebook’s news curators had been instructed to hide conservative content from the “trending” section…Topics that had been blacklisted included Mitt Romney, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Rand Paul. On the other hand, the term “Black Lives Matter” had also been placed into the trending section even though it was not actually trending.

Google and YouTube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt had assisted Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats…2016 campaign searches were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. Even the liberal website Slate had revealed the search engine’s results had favored both Clinton and Democratic candidates.

Google’s YouTube site had created its own problems with conservative content. YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels “by mistake” to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. The site’s very own YouTube page and Twitter account celebrate progressive attitudes

tech firms like Google, YouTube and Twitter partner with leftist groups attempting to censor conservatives. These include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both groups claim to combat “hate,” but treat standard conservative beliefs in faith and family as examples of that hatred.

Twelve members of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council – which helps guide its policies – are liberal, and only one is conservative. Anti-conservative groups like GLAAD and the ADL are part of the board. There is no well-known conservative group represented.

Facebook and Google both had partnered with fact-checking organizations in order to combat “fake news.” Facebook’s short-lived disputed flagger program had allowed Snopes, PolitiFact and ABC News to discern what is and is not real news. Google’s fact-checkers accused conservative sources of making claims that did not appear in their articles and disproportionately “fact-checked” conservative sources. YouTube also had announced a partnership with Wikipedia in order to debunk videos deemed to be conspiracy theories, even though Wikipedia has been criticized for its liberal bias.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ashley-rae-goldenberg/2018/04/16/censored-how-online-media-companies-are-suppressing

I mean, who are we going to believe? Greg, or our own lying eyes…

Ben Shapiro for National Review, explores…“Viewpoint Discrimination with Algorithms.”

As these companies {Google, Facebook, and Twitter} attempt to untangle the misinformation masquerading as news on their platforms, Shapiro says “they’re cracking down disproportionately on conservative news.”

Google biases its algorithm to prevent people from searching for guns online in shopping; temporarily attached fact-checks from leftist sites like Snopes and PolitiFact to conservative websites but not leftist ones; showed more pro-Clinton results than pro-Trump results in news searches…Google’s bias is as obvious as the “doodles” it chooses for its logos, which routinely feature left-wing icons and issues.

“Twitter has banned nasty accounts perceived as right-wing while ignoring similar activity from the left,” Shapiro continues. “YouTube has demonetized videos from conservatives while leaving similar videos up for members of the Left.”

Hank Berrien at the Daily Wire writes that “conservatives are justifiably furious” that “YouTube is using the radically left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), to influence its decisions as to what is too offensive to be placed on YouTube.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/today-in-conservative-media-social-media-bias-is-the-new-liberal-media-bias.html

But, you know, I have it on good authority that claims of an anti-conservative bias are ‘bullshit’.

An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

The Groundwork…is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election

Schmidt, for his part, is one of the most powerful donors in the Democratic Party

Schmidt backed Wagner…by becoming the sole investor in Civis Analytics, their data startup. Schmidt also invested in cir.cl, a social shopping startup run by Obama 2012 alumnus Carol Davidsen…(If you’re keeping score, that makes three Schmidt-funded startups run by ex-Obama staffers: Civis Analytics, cir.cl, and the Groundwork.)
https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/

I’m sure just because he’s a major Democrat donor who wanted to make sure Hillary won the election, none of that bias filtered down into how Google treated searches during the campaign.

Twitter is another culprit. The company has gotten a lot of flack for banning conservatives and Trump supporters such as Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos and, most recently, rapper Azealia Banks after she came out in support of Trump. Twitter has provided vague answers as to why conservative voices have been banned while they’ve allowed other users to call for the killing of cops.

Over the past year, Apple twice refused to publish a satirical Clinton Emailgate game, “Capitol HillAwry,” claiming it was “offensive” and “mean spirited” even though the game’s developer, John Matze, cited in communications with Apple that the game fits the standards of Apple’s own satire policy. Apple has, however, approved dozens of games poking fun at Donald Trump—including a game called “Dump Trump,” which depicts the GOP nominee as a giant turd.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-13/just-how-bad-social-media-bias-election

@Deplorable Bill: #14

So, why isn’t Mueller looking into the monitary value of that assistance and how it was never accounted for as a contribution by Hillary’s campaign?

Why, because only Republicans would every think of breaking election rules…

(sarc off)

Or maybe because the liberal-biased media is only concerned about creating an appearance of it when they think they can smear Republicans.

@Jay:

Or maybe because the liberal-biased media is only concerned about creating an appearance of it when they think they can smear Republicans.

And the liberal-biased “investigations”.