If you bothered to read the fine print when you created your Facebook account, you would have noticed just how much of yourself you were giving over to Mark Zuckerberg and his US$340 billion social network.
In exchange for an admittedly magical level of connectivity, you were giving them your life as content: the right to run ads around video from your daughter’s basketball game; pictures from your off-the-chain birthday party; or an emotional note about your return to health after serious illness. You also gave them the right to use your information to help advertisers market to you, based on your likely state of pregnancy or new place among the consciously uncoupled.
There are privacy protections.
Facebook says it will not share your identity with advertisers without your permission, and you can set limits on what they can know.
However, at the heart of the relationship is a level of trust and a waiving of privacy that Facebook requires from its users as it pursues its mission to “make the world more open and connected.”
However, how open is Facebook willing to be in return? The way it initially handled this month’s flare-up over accusations of political bias in its Trending Topics feed can only lead to this answer: not very.
That should concern anyone of any political persuasion as Facebook continues to gain influence over the national — and international — conversation.
That influence comes through the astounding growth in its users — 1.6 billion people and counting. Increasingly, those users are spending time on Facebook not only to share personal nuggets with friends, but, for more than 40 percent of adults in the US, according to Pew Research Center, to stay on top of news, which flows in and out of their individually tailored and constantly updating Facebook News Feeds.
That has helped chip away at the centrality of destination news sites like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the right-leaning Daily Caller and the left-leaning Talking Points Memo. Their articles must now vie for attention in the Facebook algorithms that help determine which items are to be prominent in which users’ feeds and which is to be highlighted in the Facebook Trending section that is prominent on users’ home pages.
So Facebook, born of the open Internet that knocked down the traditional barriers to information, becomes a gatekeeper itself. It now has an inordinate power to control a good part of the national discussion should it choose to do so, a role it shares with Silicon Valley competitors like Google and Twitter.
It is a privileged position that Facebook won through ingenuity and popularity. Zuckerberg seemed to approach this new perch with a solemn sense of responsibility when he took the company public in 2012, swearing in an investor letter: “We believe that a more open world is a better world.”
And yet, there we were this month, with Facebook ensnared in one of those big public relations crises for which openness is always the best salve. The report in Gizmodo that Facebook had a team of editorial contractors who injected their own judgement into its computer-generated Trending list — and at times suppressed “news stories of interest to conservative readers” — ran without a response from Facebook, which ignored Gizmodo’s detailed questions.
Then came the slow and awkward response. There was the initial statement that Facebook could find “no evidence” supporting the allegations. Facebook said it did not “insert stories artificially” into the Trending list, and that it had “rigorous guidelines” to ensure neutrality.
However, when journalists like the New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo asked for more details about editorial guidelines, the company declined to discuss them.
Only after the Guardian newspaper obtained an old copy of the Trending Topics guidelines did Facebook provide more information and an up-to-date copy of them. They showed that humans work with algorithms to shape the lists and introduce headlines on their own under some circumstances, contradicting Facebook’s initial statement, Recode noted. It was openness by way of a bullet to the foot.
As his staff prepared answers to pointed questions from US Senator John Thune, Zuckerberg took another step into the sunshine last week by holding a grievance session at Facebook’s campus with conservative commentators and media executives, including Fox host Dana Perino, Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson and TheBlaze founder and commentator Glenn Beck, who wrote a defense of Facebook afterward.
Many of Zuckerberg’s visitors seemed at least temporarily placated by his explanation: That Facebook had found no systemic attempt to excise conservative thought from the Trending list and that any such move would harm Facebook’s primary imperative — which is, in lay terms, to get every single person on Earth to spend every waking moment on Facebook and monetize the living expletive out of it.
However, a more important issue emerged during the meeting that had been lying beneath the surface, and has been for a while now: the power of the algorithms that determine what goes into individual Facebook pages.
“What they have is a disproportionate amount of power, and that’s the real story,” Carlson said. “It’s just concentrated in a way you’ve never seen before in media.”
What most people do not realize is that not everything they like or share necessarily gets a prominent place in their friends’ feeds: The Facebook algorithm sends it to those it determines will find it most engaging.
For outlets like the Daily Caller, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post or the New York Times — for whom Facebook’s audience is vital to growth — any algorithmic change can affect how many people see their journalism.
A cautionary tale came in 2014. News site Upworthy was successfully surfing the Facebook formula with click bait headlines that won many eyeballs. Then a change in the Facebook algorithm punished click bait, which can tend to overpromise on what it links to. Steep traffic drops followed. Upworthy has recovered, in part by relying more on video.
Throughout the media, a regular guessing game takes place in which editors seek to divine how the Facebook formula might have changed, and what it might mean for them. Facebook will often give general guidance, such as last month announcing that it had adjusted its programming to favor news articles that readers engage with deeply — rather than shallow — hits or saying that it would give priority to live Facebook Live videos, which it is also paying media companies, including the New York Times, to experiment with.
This gives Facebook enormous influence over how newsrooms, almost universally eager for Facebook exposure, make decisions and money.
Former the Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger called this a “profound and alarming” development in a column in the New Statesman last week.
For all that sway, Facebook declines to talk in great detail about its algorithms, noting that it does not want to make it easy to game its system. That system, do not forget, is devised to keep people on Facebook by giving them what they want, not necessarily what the politicos or news organizations might want them to see. There can be a mismatch in priorities.
However, Facebook’s opacity can leave big slippery-slope questions to linger. For instance, if Facebook can tweak its algorithm to reduce click bait, then, “Can they put a campaign out of business?” Gawker Media executive editor John Cook said. Gawker owns Gizmodo, the site that broke the Trending story.
No Facebook executive would discuss it with me on the record. That is not the only reason this column might seem a little cranky. My Facebook Trending list this week included this beauty: “Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.”
First of all, it was dyspepsia, and it was, like, 20 years ago. See that? I shared something pretty revealing. Your turn, Mr Zuckerberg.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with