Jaren Kerr is managing editor of The Varsity, the University of Toronto newspaper
Gizmodo's report this week that Facebook's news curators had allegedly censored conservative news sources from appearing in the trending news box has caused quite a commotion online. Many conservatives are expressing their displeasure at what they see as censorship. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has demanded that Facebook respond to the allegations. This right-wing fury is misplaced and unjustified.
The faux outrage brings up some interesting points about both Facebook and journalism. The first is that people are applying standards expected of publishers on Facebook, which is only a platform where publishers exist. Facebook is in no way obligated, ethically or otherwise, to be neutral – whatever that means – in which stories it highlights. Its status as an Internet behemoth does not change the fact that it is a company with the freedom to promote whatever it pleases. Chairman Mark Zuckerberg seems to be fairly liberal, and it makes sense that he would encourage his site to feature stories that align with his values. Facebook is a public company, but Mr. Zuckerberg has extensive control over its operations; if he wants to highlight liberal news, it's his right. Surely, any advocate of free enterprise would agree.
Another issue this story highlights is that Internet users are over-reliant on Facebook to serve their needs. The overwhelming concern that right-wing content is being censored on the social network indicates that many people see it as the door to the Internet. For many, Facebook has become the one-stop shop for news and information. That's all well and good, but Facebook isn't forcing anyone to use it. If what you're looking for isn't on Facebook, all you need to do is open a new tab and type in the address of your desired page. That so many people aren't willing to go directly to the home pages of their favourite news sources is a bad sign for brand loyalty.
In the age of ad blocking and general dismay for media companies, Facebook can look like a saviour. It has a massive audience, and people spend an incredible amount of time on it. To maximize their impact, publishers make use of the tools that social networks provide. On Facebook, this means things such as instant articles and live video are a must-use. But relying on Facebook means publishers can become slaves to the social network's algorithm, which can have unpleasant results, such as a sharp reduction in traffic. In early 2014, Upworthy, a progressive publisher known for its excessive use of "curiosity gap" headlines, saw its traffic sink into a black hole when the algorithm stopped favouring its formula. Other publishers could see the same fate if they put all their eggs in the blue basket.
For all of Facebook's success, it's still just one place on the Internet. Even if it was truly censoring information, there are countless other places to get it.
We all have our biases, and news curators are no exception. But it's important to remember the massive benefit of human intervention in curating news: intuition. Journalism is about sharing important information, and it takes a person to pick out a big story. Quantitative metrics alone cannot measure interest, importance, relevance, urgency or impact.
The Gizmodo report explained that stories that did not warrant a place on the trending news box based on an algorithm, such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the disappearance of the Malaysian Airlines plane in 2014, were inserted onto the list by humans. Both stories were undoubtedly important, and perhaps we wouldn't have known about them as quickly if it weren't for a bit of bias.