FB's motivation at the end of day is money, they will cater to demands of any ruling org. For long time Zuck was doing trips to PRC to cozy up to CCP.
I went through the article and while I don't rule out the possibility of ideological bias in an org, it seems that they are reaching for it a bit. Like the first instance itself that was mentioned in the article.
> Facebook said in a statement to TIME. “We failed to remove upon initial review, which was a mistake on our part.”
I am not a FB employee but if they have a two step process for removing some posts and say the second step in some cases is creating an issue on the ticketing system. By Occam's razor the simplest explanation can be easily that what FB is saying is the truth, in mid/big companies, issue trackers can easily be the places where things can go to die.
I have personally seen issues being left unaddressed for years. It can happen, and if we pick selective instances to paint a story, it might not be the complete picture.
Though as I mentioned earlier as well, they very well can have a bias if they have hired individuals with the same ideological background which is true for all types of orgs including old media houses.
There's more concrete evidence of Facebook's political bias in the Wall Street Journal report mentioned in the article.
> Yet Mr. Singh, a member of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party, is still active on Facebook and Instagram, where he has hundreds of thousands of followers. The company’s top public-policy executive in the country, Ankhi Das, opposed applying the hate-speech rules to Mr. Singh and at least three other Hindu nationalist individuals and groups flagged internally for promoting or participating in violence, said the current and former employees.
> Ms. Das, whose job also includes lobbying India’s government on Facebook’s behalf, told staff members that punishing violations by politicians from Mr. Modi’s party would damage the company’s business prospects in the country, Facebook’s biggest global market by number of users, the current and former employees said.
I went through the article and while I don't rule out the possibility of ideological bias in an org, it seems that they are reaching for it a bit. Like the first instance itself that was mentioned in the article.
> Facebook said in a statement to TIME. “We failed to remove upon initial review, which was a mistake on our part.”
I am not a FB employee but if they have a two step process for removing some posts and say the second step in some cases is creating an issue on the ticketing system. By Occam's razor the simplest explanation can be easily that what FB is saying is the truth, in mid/big companies, issue trackers can easily be the places where things can go to die.
I have personally seen issues being left unaddressed for years. It can happen, and if we pick selective instances to paint a story, it might not be the complete picture.
Though as I mentioned earlier as well, they very well can have a bias if they have hired individuals with the same ideological background which is true for all types of orgs including old media houses.