Facebook recently announced that after the election they changed their algorithm.
In an effort to stamp out resistance the social media platform is suppressing what it considers “hyperpartisan” news pages (like Breitbart) and promote “authoritative” news pages like CNN.
The Times reported that Facebook employees “proposed an emergency change to the site’s news feed algorithm” and that they received the information from “three people with knowledge of the decision, who were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.”
Here’s the full excerpt from the Times:
…proposed an emergency change to the site’s news feed algorithm, which helps determine what more than two billion people see every day. It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls “news ecosystem quality” scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.
Typically, N.E.Q. scores play a minor role in determining what appears on users’ feeds. But several days after the election, Mr. Zuckerberg agreed to increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores to make sure authoritative news appeared more prominently, said three people with knowledge of the decision, who were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.
Facebook executives are claiming the change is temporary but, according to the Times report employees what the suppression of conservative news outlets permanent. Employees claim suppressing conservatives is a “nicer news feed.”
Guy Rosen, a Facebook executive who oversees the integrity division that is in charge of cleaning up the platform, said on a call with reporters last week that the changes were always meant to be temporary. “There has never been a plan to make these permanent,” he said. John Hegeman, who oversees the news feed, said in an interview that while Facebook might roll back these experiments, it would study and learn from them.
But recent reports show that big tech suppression works.
A report from Newsbusters showed that 17% of Biden voters would have not voted for him but they were unaware of major stories that were censored by the media and big tech.
BREAKING: The media’s refusal to cover basic reports dramatically changed election results.
If voters knew about ANY of these key stories the media failed to cover, @realDonaldTrump would have won with 311 electoral votes.
Full poll and analysis here: https://t.co/y8Zfb5rCx8
— MediaResearchCenter (@theMRC) November 24, 2020
Wow pic.twitter.com/LELNIcdLkd
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 24, 2020
Those percentages above were the amount of Biden supporters that would have changed their votes had they been aware of the reports.
They want sheep.
