As you suspected.
>>73569193
/pol/ never lies.
How could we, as anonymous we are contractually obliged to tell the truth.
The nose knows
Honestly, it just made me leave Facebook. I got sick of seeing biased shit in my news feed, so I used it less. Thanks Cuckerberg, for freeing me of the shackles of FB
>>73569256
>anonymous
They are a bunch of SJW cucks and do not deserve mention here
>>73569612
Not that anonymous.
>>73569193
wheres the archive? I want to read the whole story
Are you surprised
>>73569612
Is that what everyone thinks of now when people say anonymous? How far we've fallen.
>>73569193
kikebook did what?! it can't be, i'm speechless
Well it happens that the conservative news consist of fear mongering, anti-refugees and nut cases for gun rights. It's no wonder why Facebook needed to supress right wing news.
>>73569773
What's that mark? let us see what your jacket says!
why are jews so liberal? minorities hate them a lot more than whites conservatives
>>73569193
>Faceberg
Facebook kikery thread?
i got banned pre emptively for this meme
>>73569612
You're thinking of ""Anonymous"" who diverged out of the fractured Anonymous; not anonymous.
>>73569485
but does it remember?
>>73570043
Trump lets thousands of people into his tower every day.
>/pol/ was right
Get used to it new-friends.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
>>73569612
>t. anonymous
Common noun anonymous, not proper noun Anonymous.
>>73570558
fully degenerate
>>73570558
>opposes censorship
>supports blacklists
>>73570043
Sounds nice and all, but you can actually have both a wall and a bridge. The bridge being a proper vetting system for immigrants who want to live here legally and work hard. The wall is to keep those people and the people already here safe. It's a win-win for everyone.
>>73569612
A goy has no name.
>>73569821
4chan and anonymous are no longer one and the same. Anonymous turned from "internet hate machine, for the lulz" to "internet 'activists' and anarchists" after the Scientology shit went mainstream. Occupy walstreet was the final nail in the coffin.
Wow, right wing tabloids aren't considered credible news sources. The injustice
>>73569773
haha
>>73569193
>/pol/ is right this often
Jesuse Christ
>>73571157
>>73569193
I would be extremely surprised if Google, facebook, twitter, etc. weren't doing this.
>>73569193
I heard about this today; was gonna make a thread but I forgot lol.
Yeah, I'm not surprised Kikebook has been doing this. I suspect Twitter is doing it as well, since pro-left posts are always put at the top of the feed, even when their are right-wing/nationalist posts with more likes and shares.
>>73569766
Nevermind, found the article. All I had to do was look up the title.
Remember when YouTube was fucking with the With Open Gates video? It wouldn't show up in search results for the longest time.
>>73569914
>A FUCKING LEAF
>>73569193
What obligation does Facebook have to promote "conservative" "news"?
>>73570558
liberals.jpg
>>73571164
I think the
>shouldn't be allowed a platform that could be used to influence others
is actually the worst part.
>>73571592
It doesn't.
But it's dishonest as fuck to covertly misrepresent public discourse while pretending to be neutral.
>>73571676
The idiots who take from all that Cuckerberg says that facebook is neutral are going to be stupid enough to be unalterably left anyway.
>>73571157
And left-wing tabloids are plastered all over faceberg. Who'd have thought?
>>73569193
Nearly every main news site is left wing - even supposed objective ones like the BBC are deeply deeply left. You have to read around a lot these days and legitimately /pol/ is a good source. It's full of absolute crap but if you are discerning there is news that wont be covered by any mainstream source.
>>73571944
absolutely right
I came here for shits and giggles back in the day, like 2008, but it's sobering how much you miss now if you only use modern clickbait sites
Pretty sure Google's "News" boosts lefty sources, if not flat out suppressing rightwing sites.
>>73571944
Why don't you name a couple so we can see what page you're on, hmm?
>>73571592
It says it suppressed news, not didn't promote it. Tard.
>>73569193
link
>>73570922
Not killing all whites and stopping everyone else from coming here to replace the population is racist now.
Haven't you heard?
>>73571676
Just so we're clear, would you be okay with "misrepresenting public discourse" as long as there were no claims of neutrality (which is actually not what Facebook claims, but I'll let it slip)?
>>73570981
kek
>>73572219
As in which /pol/ pages? None apart from this, as I said there's a lot of rubbish and im just here having breakfast.
>>73572224
So posting a link to a "news" source is not promoting that source? Can you explain in simple English, to a "tard" like me, what that is, then?
>>73572394
Oh god, no, silly britbong, "what page you're on", as in "what weird fucking /pol/ conspiracy bullshit you've glommed on to". Don't they have that expression in FuckedTeethistan?
>>73572419
>"news"
No, we're talking about news. Take those quotes and stick them up your asshole you stupid faggot. Stop trying to use language to misrepresent an issue.
And this isn't about Facebook promoting anything, it is about (as you could've read yourself you illiterate tard) news stories that would otherwise be trending, which happens due to user input.
Facebook deliberately suppresses viral news stories that don't fit their own political leitmotif.
>>73572488
I never said anything about conspiracies, hence why your question of what page i'm on didn't make much sense at all.
Though in terms of what news I currently find on /pol/ that you don't see elsewhere: a lot of things about refugees, islam and international events. Also a lot of college events, so stories of no-platforming, protests. Been following the american election through /pol/ more than any other source etc.
>>73572488
>what weird fucking /pol/ conspiracy bullshit you've glommed on to
The thing is, a lot of the people here are perfectly sensible, and don't believe most of that nonsense.
/pol/ works out well to filter some stories from some of the more reliable sources (reuters, ect). I would never claim that this conspiracy theorist aspect does not exist on /pol/, but to dismiss people like that is just absurd. Your insults are misguided.
>>73570558
>I'm against censorship except when censoring things I don't like
Nice.
>>73570611
this bitch needs to die ironically by the hands of a muslim man
>>73569193
I reported some muslim on facebook a while ago because he was posting that he would be happy to kill all non-believers, that all hindus will burn in hell etc, the usual islam stuff.
Obviously nothing got done about it, which would be fine if it were not for the fact that if I posted something saying anything as mild as "islam is a dangerous religion" i would surely have my account suspended and a call from the police.
>>73572612
did you really think the "viral" idea was for real?
virality of information does not increase quality or spread. thus is has no economic use.
facebook was just the means of centralizing the method of information exchange. now that it's centralized, they use it to their own ends. of course, they can still call it viral because it arises from the "consent" of the people.
reminds me of an old chinese monarch...
long live the king! I'm sayingt his because I WANT to say it! :^)
>>73574540
>blah blah
Liberal news start trending when they go viral.
Conservative news don't, because the facebook employees specifically blacklist them.
There are no deeper nuances to this, you absolute faggot.
>>73574717
okay, go ahead, say in your perfect new world where facebook doesn't exist, and you install in bizarrofacebook a very right wing person dedicated to free speech.
uh oh, man, there are a lot of ideas spreading on facebook that make facebook less money than it potentially can.
I wonder what we can do about that...
come on, herr raclette, your education system is better than this
>>73574895
Clearly the solution is to nationalize the media
>>73574895
Are you a hebephrenic?
You're literally spewing shit with no basis in reality or relevance to the topic at all.
>>73574717
>There are no deeper nuances to this
Well, that's not 100% correct, though I agree with your sentiment.
Even though Facebook is fully within it's rights to do this, even though I think they should have the right for this kind of censorship, that does not mean that it's any less of a scummy move.
I really hate the fact that people think they have to point it out. Yes, Facebook has the full right to do this. That does not mean that this should be considered a good thing to do.
>>73574895
It's still wrong. The fact that they can pretty much get away with this just makes it worse if anything.
There is a limited number of times Facebook can get caught doing this kind of thing before they will see a significant loss. You are correct, they can do some pretty vile shit before people stop using it, but your argumentation is that of a retard.
Facebook added something to the long list of wrongs they commit. The fact that they will not see a huge loss of revenue due to this is a secondary issue at best, and you're acting like it's not.
>>73574941
maybe. it worked in china. and on the negative end, that we're delivering speech to the democrats, at least now the relationship becomes obvious, that you are NOT allowed to say republican things. republicans think what they say can change opinions, which is the main reason we still don't kill all home invaders
>>73574988
it's plenty relevant. but perhaps your english isn't good enough to understand, or you lack a grasp of actual politics. you assume "real viral" news will help our cause.
you think reality ends where your understanding of news ends. reality is more complicated than you understand and there is ALWAYS more nuance. but go ahead and think you have the entire world figured out
>>73570558
And this is one of many reasons that I am voting Trump.
>>73575343
Quit patronizing me, you stupid cunt.
You're ignoring the issue at hand while reading deeply into nuances that may or may not exist and that certainly are not fucking relevant to what I'm saying.
Facebook blacklists trending news stories if they don't agree with what they say. I don't give a shit about the theoretical scenarios you make up and what you think about the morality of it. I'm saying that's what they do and there is no ambiguity in it.
>>73575213
facebook isn;t alive because it makes revenue. it literally doesn't make a profit. it can afford to make LESS of a profit so as long as it gets preferential treatment by the government and finds a way to access marketshare.
or even if it obliquely fails it can just swallow up its competition. the chinese had a facebook style social media where people could see massively shared stories. it encountered a political purge and users left for fear of arrest. a new, decentralized app emerged where only your friends could see your shit. it was bought out VERY early, by the same company as before, and is now subject to similar censorship.
facebook already won this war. they have the most concentrated control over media in the history of the world, and you think they're "vulnerable" ok bud
>>73575525
>it literally doesn't make a profit.
How do you figure that?
>>73570558
we 1984 nao
>>73574895
How about not advertising it as a place for open expression, speech, and communication? Fuck. The idea here isn't that they should be blocking liberals or conservatives. They shouldn't be fucking with what trends and what doesn't.
They should have just kept it a free flow of information. But they didn't.
A decentralized alternative to Facebook needs to take off so that Zuckerberg can go fuck himself, and hang himself for being the absolute stereotype that he is.
>>73570558
Wow. Just...wow.
>conservative """""news""""
you mean some bullshit about the Muslim hordes or men in drag raping """MUH WOMEN"""?
no big loss
>>73570558
Jesus Christ what a lunatic.
>>73575490
it's not theoretical. anything appealing to "virality" is already inherently liberal of some stripe. when you read a "right wing" story, say one about trump, on a viral conservative network, trump is good because he's "for the REAL people, not the FAKE foreign people." uh oh, you know where that line of logic leads.
virality itself will always lead to a lower common denominator, which in turn, will always lead to the exclusion of right wing ideas, even if the network is established as conservative.
look at the national review, which recently published an article about why whites deserve to die. or hell, look at NAZIs, who eventually became hyperliberals in terms of pandering.
or you can just say "well that's so complicated it hurts my BRAIN. I just want to COMPLAIN."
you can do that too. that's helpful
>>73569914
God forbid people have opinions about political ideologies like Islam that make warzones of everywhere it goes and constitutionally stated American liberties designed to guarantee us from a government becoming tyrannical
>>73569193
Was this not common information before?
>>73570876
Who's that?
>>73575813
>it's not theoretical. anything appealing to "virality" is already inherently liberal of some stripe. when you read a "right wing" story, say one about trump, on a viral conservative network, trump is good because he's "for the REAL people, not the FAKE foreign people." uh oh, you know where that line of logic leads.
Except this is irrelevant, because this employee admitted to suppressing viral objects that would otherwise be trending.
Clearly, the actual userbase of facebook is more neutral (talking averages) than you give it credit for. Otherwise, these stories would've never had to be blacklisted.
> virality itself will always lead to a lower common denominator, which in turn, will always lead to the exclusion of right wing ideas, even if the network is established as conservative.
Except this has no bearing on reality. See above point.
It doesn't matter what you think Facebook will become if there's no censorship. Fact of the matter is that there is censorship right now.
>>73575711
Filename is not
>Level 1 players in rpgs
>>73570558
>>73570558
>that newspeak
>that doublethink
I wonder what Orwell would think about the state of the world if he were alive today.
>>73569193
This is the liberals' endgame. Thought control not through legal abolishment of free speech, but rather chipping away at language, acceptable discourse, and free flow of ideas.
Closet fascists the lot of them.
>>73575563
it makes revenue but not a profit. there's a difference. it has a LOT of revenue, but never enough to cover operating costs and acquisitions.
it's similar to the "zombie bank" situation
>>73575675
the point I was trying to make is that there IS NO and NEVER WILL BE "free expession."
even if you are incredibly conservative, or fascist even, and you want "free fascist expression," you will control a news organization and either
a: see something liberal that threatens your power, and censor it or
b: see something more conservative than you that threatens your power, and censor it
all organizations have a directive. free speech is not a directive, because it does not maintain truth, nor political power, nor influence. let's be explicit about news, it ALWAYS has a bias, it's inevitable. all you're doing is playing denial with this fact, and so will the NEXT news organization after facebook. they will ALSO promise there's no bias.
No shit, it's not called kikebook for nothing.
>>73575525
>and you think they're "vulnerable" ok bud
Did you even read what I wrote? That's a senseless response to what I wrote.
Did you read this part?
>You are correct, they can do some pretty vile shit before people stop using it, but your argumentation is that of a retard.
You should realize that there are alternatives to using Facebook altogether. I thought people realized back in 2008 that arguments like "X and Y are not vulnerable" are retarded. I wouldn't normally feel like I have to point this out, but against a moron like you I can never be sure: that was due to different factors: The message is times change.
I really hate how I have to repeat myself, but did you miss the part where I said this is a secondary point at best? You are not saying factually incorrect points, but those points only make what others do not like worse.
You do realize that what you said implies that we should just bend over? God forbid people boycott something they don't like, no matter how big it is. After all, biggest reason people leave Facebook is that they realize they can live without it.
>>73576140
You miss so many points that it's comical. Everyone knows what you are saying. We just think that's not a primary issue here.
>>73576140
>it makes revenue but not a profit.
Can you stop acting like you're talking to a complete dumbfuck simply because your ideas are for once in your life challenged? Stop being such a patronizing piece of shit for once and answer my question.
How do you figure that they don't make a profit?
>>73569193
It's the same with Jewtube. Watch one video of Ann Coulter on Bill Maher, next thing you know every recommended video is Maher tonguing Hillary's taint or tickling Bernie's prostate.
>>73576030
of course there's censorship now. this is the END state of all social networks/news organizations.
ALL sandcastles will collapse. ALL news outlets end with censorship.
you might as well get angry that the sun sets in the evening.
unless media starts with the objective of preserving national morality, race, and killing subhumans, its objective will turn liberal. look at japanese or chinese national media. they're probably the only news orgs on the planet that aren't inherentl liberal. do you think itm ight have to do anything with the statements I've made above? it MIGHT
neither japan nor china pretend to believe in free speech. they are explicitly nationalist. if they even TRIED to pretend to be pro-free speech, things would degrade into liberalism
liek sandcastles
>>73576107
Either pull a Hemmingway or a Breivik
>>73575703
You're not the only person to have said this ITT. None of you read the article did you? It mentions some of the topics that were suppressed. Articels on Mitt Romney for example had as much organic talk on FB as did O-dawg but articles on Romney weren't promoted creating the impression in FB users that nobody wanted to talk about him. When you consider how FB amplifies peer pressure I can see how you could argue this actually affected the election.
As to the shills saying FB isn't obliged to be objective and impartial, its funny that they've responded to these accusations by citing their company policy of impartiality. This suggests that they knew these claims would be leveled at them eventually.
>>73569914
The left abuse fear too, just in a different and more infantile way.
>I-i'm not afraid of the muslims
>>>Why are you not worried?
>I simply don't fear!
>if we integrate them, if you get better at integrating them and give them opportunities, they will be a "plus" to our society
>so I believe it's a fear, and I don't share it
This happened on TV, it's like a 5 year old trying to prove he is brave by being in denial.
>>73576244
what is your primary point then? you guys can circlejerk that a lion ate a gazelle all you want. advance the conversation.
of COURSE arabs raped a white woman and of COURSE it was covered up.
we aren't going to win a "free speech batle" with liberals.
so what are we gonna do instead?
>>73576306
facebook LITERALLY spends more money than it makes. that's how I figure they don't make a profit.
go look at their rev ex exp. figures.
what ELSE do you want me to say on the subject? I'm not going to write you a mathematical proof for arithmetic
>>73576372
You're again delving into weird hebephrenic rants instead of staying on topic.
>ALL news outlets end with censorship.
What leads you to the conclusion that facebook is a news outlet, rather than a social media platform?
Do you think /pol/ is a news outlet? Do you think there's censorship on /pol/?
I don't think why you keep bring up your general concepts of communities. It's literally irrelevant to what's at hand. We're not discussing facebook being inherently liberal, we're talking about Facebook employees suppressing topics of discussion that doesn't fit their motif.
I admit I was joking when I first asked if you're a hebephrenic, but right now it seems more plausible than it did then.
>>73569193
>>73569256
>>73569805
>>73569831
>>73569831
>>73570549
>>73571225
>>73571377
>>73575490
>UNPROVEN
You guys will fall for anything.
>>73576139
>This is the liberals' endgame. Thought control not through legal abolishment of free speech, but rather chipping away at language, acceptable discourse, and free flow of ideas.
>Closet fascists the lot of them.
Worth repeating.
>>73576582
>facebook LITERALLY spends more money than it makes.
How
do
you
figure?
Why the fuck do I have to ask you this multiple times.
What are the calculations you made to come up with this conclusion? Where did you find numbers that led you to make a SIMPLE SUBTRACTION to find out wether they make a profit?
>>73576612
are you autistic?
facebook censored. that's the END of the conversation, according to you.
what else are you going to discuss? how? who?
I'm talking about WHY. you're telling me that's off topic. of course, you can just RESTATE the PREMISE again. go ahead. they censored. say it again. please. maybe you can throw in an expletive "those darn liberals ruin everything! facebook censored!"
okay. cool. now what? you gonna say it a hundreth time?
you talk like an old lady that just wants to restate the obvious, but with a touch of disbelief, or righteous anger, or knowing pity.
>>73571489
Fuck. Terrifying.
I wonder, what are the people that are cheering the refugees actually thinking? Sure, OK, be in support of giving asylum. But what compels them to jump and shout and cheer? It makes no sense.
>>73576619
Snopes is run by jews
>>73576582
>what is your primary point then? you guys can circlejerk that a lion ate a gazelle all you want. advance the conversation.
see
>>73576488
>>73576619
You're advancing it into a retarded direction. We were trying to steer it away from retardation. There is intelligent discussions to be had. Not in the direction you want to steer it into. You're shit at advancing the discussion, making responses we've already responded to before anyone made them.
>>73576844
Says the one literally responding by saying things I already offhandedly responded to because I thought your points were moronic. Even autists are better at making points. See where you steered the discussion? Do you now get why we want you off the wheel?
>>73576844
>facebook censored. that's the END of the conversation, according to you.
>what else are you going to discuss? how? who?
This is the first time you've actually acknowledged this as a truth rather than making up excuses and saying "it would be censored either way".
I honestly don't give too much of a fuck about the topic past that. Discussed it to death with other people before, you don't bring any new ideas to the table. You're just repeating your sandcastle shit over and over, with no actual tangible relevance to the issue at hand.
You're like the faggot that barges in on a conversation about lawnmowers with
>grass can not grow indefinitely. It will eventually reach terminal size.
>>73577152
This.
>>73576690
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3511536-amazon-profitable-facebook
learn how to read a balance sheet. you're in the right country for it
Methinks that there is not enough censorship. The flow of information and ideas must be more controlled and managed with non approved stuff removed at the source
>>73576619
Why is this website trustful when were in the midst of an information war ?
>>73569914
The left also convinced the world that nerds arguing about video games on twitter is terrorism. They love fear mongering nonsense more than anyone.
>>73577232
I like your ironic trip
at the same time, however, liberals win over issues where there is no overt struggle
we need to establish an actual struggle before the power to censor will end up in the correct hands. news to me how to do this. I'm imagining a lot of it will require a government in exile situation.
Fortunately for us, Moot's going to Make Google+ Great Again.
http://gizmodo.com/4chan-creator-says-he-works-at-google-now-and-we-can-t-1763337602
>>73576844
You really are all over the place.
You state yourself you are throwing in a little theory you made up on WHY they do it.
WHY does not change the fact that they DO.
The WHY is not irrelevant perse, but it is very much irrelevant to the fact that they DO.
You made up your own theory, with which a lot of people here seem to disagree. Mostly because you simply state something and hardly defend it and then expect the conversion to take in your random info.
>>73577539
>inb4 luggage lad runs google into the ground
You just know it's gonna happen considering his previous business ventures.
>>73576619
>snopes
>>73577228
I don't really consider a blogpost opinion piece consisting of pure speculation about stocks made by some rando as a valuable source. Especially not seeing as how he's clearly invested in amazon.
http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=924562
Shows a pretty decent net income. First party source, no speculation.
I'm asking you, how do you figure facebook isn't profitable when they themselves state a net income of billions yearly?
>>73569193
Twitter abuse department does it too.
So do most of the crowd funding platforms.
Most is not just suspicion. This has been demonstrated. The social ties which corrupt these services have been demonstrated.
>>73577543
this is a valid criticism. I DID NOT prove my premise, you're correct.
I believe it is true, but I did not create this premise. much more intelligent people than I, such as spengler all created this idea before me.
it's difficult to prove a premise without specific criticisms to argue against.
I think the general realization that anything not explicitly reactionary will eventually turn left wing is fairly self evident. maybe it's not, someone sufficiently well read in history might be able to provide a counterexample. I provided three for my case already.
the people here don't want to talk about it. that's fine, they don't know history so they don't wish to discuss this aspect of it.
but sitting around complaining isn't gonna help.
the problem is that these posters think that COMPLAINING is a valid mode of political expression which can accomplish something. it's not.
the liberals WON, then they complained about right wingers as a way to oppress us, a victory dance of sorts. complaining isn't why they wont. and us complaining won't remove them from power.
I didn't see the conversation going anywhere else so I thought I'd introduce some food for thought. but they just called me autistic because they think anything that hurts their brains is a mental disease.
good job advancing the dialogue, schweizerbro.
>>73578020
It's easy to have a net income when you don't pay taxes.
Zuckercuck is a progressive up until it comes time to pay taxes. Then it's poor people's job to pay, not Facebook or Apple or Google.
>>73570558
To this day, the scientific community has not found a material more dense than the American liberal.
>>73578020
if you disagree with the logic in the article you can post specific points. I'm not going to rewrite it for you
>>73577527
Nothing about my post was ironic
>>73578585
I not only disagreed with the logic in the article, I directly proved it wrong by posting first party information about the net income. Which is positive, vastly.
You were wrong, lad.
>>73569612
Anonymous are a bunch of weak shits that you could legit get /pol/ to raid with a single thread, they couldn't even take down any of trump's sites when i spied on them.
>>73578695
the article specifically mentions that this is accounting wizardry. you can address that, or you can shut up.
christ I can't believe I'm falling for this at 1 in the morning
>>73570043
That's a gate you dumbass
>>73579192
The article also has no credible sources or otherwise facts to back this up and is highly biased.
It's literally speculation, nigger. Don't be a fucking retard. You were wrong, Facebook is profitable.
>>73579319
And what does a gate connect to?
>>73576012
Looks like Kaley Cucuo.
>>73572301
Not that anon but here's a you
No it's very dishonest
So Paul Ryan has all but confirmed that he was going to take the nomination at a contested convention with Kasich as his VP. He's still holding on to that tiny chance that Trump voters declare victory and stop voting in the primaries.
They really are trying everything.
>>73569914
Top tier trolling Canada. You may just get the crown back from Australia after all.
>>73569193
Let them.
Let them create their echo chamber.
Let them believe in their being right.
Let them believe they are the majority in their belief.
Let them believe we are isolated kooks that dare not leave their confines.
Let them embolden themselves, let them grow their delusions of grandeur, let them grow into hubris where they show their true face.
They will know the extent of their mistake then.
>>73576139
fix'd version
>>73579319
you stupid poo in loo, there is a wall either side of the gate. Trumps wall will also have a gate to let people pass through legally.
>>73582630
10/10
>>73570558
>>73569193
>To the surprise of zero conservatives
