(TLB) Editor: It would be very difficult to find anyone that does not know the 60’s favorite Hippy Dippy Mag “Mother Jones.” (Ah yes, the smell of “patchouli oil” in the air… Sorry we digress.) Mother Jones almost replaced the American Dictionary during that period of time. It was for sure the Holy Grail, and perhaps still is, for the left leaning politician and his/her constituency.
And so you can imagine when Left Leaning Mother Jones had more than a few Harsh Words for Left Leaning Facebook and The Zuck, how it has created more that a few raised eyebrows. We also have to wonder, what in the name of Silicon is Zuckerberg up to?? (TLB)
oops…. the kids in the sandbox are fighting again….
‘Garbage company’: Mother Jones chief lashes out at Facebook for throttling traffic to left-leaning news site
Facebook’s tinkering with its news feed has cost Mother Jones up to $600,000 a year in lost revenue, its editor-in-chief has alleged, calling the social network a “garbage company” and a “toxic cesspool” damaging the US.
Clara Jeffery said she was “enraged” after reading a Wall Street Journal story about how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has drifted away from his apolitical stance and became a seriously involved player in the last four years.
1/ I am enraged. Excellent reporting from WSJ’s @dseetharaman and @EmilyGlazer finds that Facebook engineers—with sign-off from Zuckerberg himself—retooled their algorithm to throttle traffic to high-value progressive news orgs, @MotherJones IN PARTICULAR https://t.co/BeIYghE1xt pic.twitter.com/emQcZ832Iw
— Person Woman Man Camera TV (@ClaraJeffery) October 16, 2020
Among other things, the newspaper described how in 2017 Facebook changed its news feed algorithm “to minimize the presence of political news.”
“Policy executives were concerned about the outsize impact of the changes on the right, including the Daily Wire, people familiar with the matter said. Engineers redesigned their intended changes so that left-leaning sites like Mother Jones were affected more than previously planned,” WSJ reported, adding that Zuckerberg had personally signed off on the alterations.
Mother Jones has experienced a significant drop in traffic coming from Facebook, Jeffery said, adding that it costs her publication some $400,000 to $600,000 annually. She also accused the social network of lying to the MJ social media team about the changes in the algorithm.
Similar criticism came from Tara McGowan, a co-founder of nonprofit Acronym. Among other things, Acronym operates a network of websites called Courier Newsroom, which ostensibly produces local news, but was designed as a political vehicle to swing votes for Democrats – ostensibly in response to Republicans using the same tactics.
Zuckerberg, the WSJ report said, argued that Courier Newsroom was not a news organization. The discussion led to Facebook adopting a policy that ousted partisan-backed sites from its news feed and of otherwise restricting their reach on the platform. The policy favors conservative sites “known for spreading disinformation,” McGowan angrily tweeted.
🚨 WSJ confirms what we’ve suspected: Mark Zuckerberg directly intervened to prevent progressive news orgs like @CourierNewsroom from being included in Facebook’s News Tab, while sharing meals with Ben Shapiro + exchanging texts with Jared Kushner 🚨 https://t.co/Wrta7jNQvI
— Tara McGowan (@taraemcg) October 16, 2020
Both Jeffery and McGowan also rebuked Zuckerberg for talking to conservative media figures like co-founder of the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro. According to the WSJ, the influential commenter got invited to a dinner with the Facebook CEO last year. “While the two aren’t friends, they sometimes discuss broader political and philosophical themes, the people added, many of which they disagree on,” the WSJ report said.
“WTF, seriously? Guess who’s not invited to dinner? Hey Mark, I only live a few blocks from you,” Jeffery responded.
5/ Zuckerberg had Ben Shapiro over to dinner to court him? WTF, seriously? Guess who’s not invited to dinner? Hey Mark, I only live a few blocks from you. https://t.co/BeIYghE1xt pic.twitter.com/Hvc7CdnyZW
— Person Woman Man Camera TV (@ClaraJeffery) October 16, 2020
The WSJ report and the backlash from the Left came as the power that big tech companies have over what information reaches the public in the US is subjected to increased scrutiny. Earlier this week Facebook restricted the spread of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden and allegations that he had peddled influence as the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden. Twitter went even further and banned sharing links to the story on its service, a controversial decision that since had been reversed.
The acts of censorship were cheered-on by many public figures on the Left, which sees the story as a smear of the Democrat candidate in the presidential election. Many on the Right called it a brazen attack on freedom of speech and the latest proof that Silicon Valley giants play favorites in politics.
(TLB) published this article from RT-USA News
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.