When the left is attacking Mark Zuckerberg for being too friendly with Trump, you at least know that Facebook won't be quite as pro-Democrat

In an op-ed, George Soros claims that Facebook got Trump elected in 2016 because it didn't censor what he claims was incorrect news. He also claims that FB is trying to help out out Trump again.

More recently, direct contact between the two men has raised serious questions. Mr. Zuckerberg met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office on Sept. 19, 2019. We don’t know what was said. But from an interview on the sidelines at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 22, we do know what Mr. Trump said about the meeting: Mr. Zuckerberg “told me that I’m No. 1 in the world in Facebook.” Mr. Trump apparently had no problem with Facebook’s decision not to fact-check political ads. “I’d rather have him just do whatever he is going to do,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Zuckerberg. “He’s done a hell of a job, when you think of it.” 

The president’s 2016 campaign mounted a robust data-centric communications effort and has continued to build on that program over the past few years, using Facebook as a key part of their strategy. 

Facebook’s decision not to require fact-checking for political candidates’ advertising in 2020 has flung open the door for false, manipulated, extreme and incendiary statements. Such content is rewarded with prime placement and promotion if it meets Facebook-designed algorithmic standards for popularity and engagement. . . .  

I expressed my fear that with Facebook’s help, Mr. Trump will win the 2020 election. The recent hiring of a right-wing figure to help manage its news tab has reinforced those fears. . . . 

Democrats turn on Facebook and Zuckerberg

CNN is making it clear that its Democrat allies hate Facebook.

Facebook has also faced mounting scrutiny on both sides of the political aisle — but especially from Democrats — over what is seen by lawmakers as its market dominance as well as the perception, expressed in an interview published this week with Democratic presidential nominee Pete Buttigieg, that Zuckerberg has too much power.  

Facebook's refusal to remove a doctored video of Pelosi last May clearly irked Democrats, including Clinton, who called the video "sexist trash" and suggested the argument for taking it down "wasn't even a close call." 

But what really hit a nerve with Democrats more recently was Facebook's insistence last September that it would not fact-check ads from politicians — a policy many Democrats saw as beneficial to Trump's reelection campaign.  

Facebook, the Democratic National Committee said, was allowing Trump "to mislead the American people on their platform unimpeded." 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren ran a deliberately false ad to highlight what Democrats saw as the ludicrousness of the policy. The false ad claimed Zuckerberg had endorsed Trump's reelection campaign. 

When Biden's campaign demanded Facebook remove a false ad from the Trump campaign accusing Biden of corruption of his role in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration, Facebook refused. 

"Our approach is grounded in Facebook's fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is," Katie Harbath, Facebook's head of global elections policy wrote in response last October. . . . 

But Facebook often appears to be the Democrats' favored target — even as leading Democratic candidates for president continue to sink money into the platform for their campaigns. . . .

Democrats by 28% to 16% think Social Media Platforms Censor Conservatives more than Liberals

From the new PEW Research Center:

The view that major technology companies are more supportive of certain political views is particularly widespread among Republicans. Some 64% of Republicans (including Republican-leaning independents) say major technology companies support the views of liberals over conservatives, and just 28% say these companies support the views of liberals and conservatives equally. By contrast, 28% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say these companies support liberal views over conservative ones, and 53% say both groups’ views are supported equally. Just 16% of Democrats say the companies support the views of conservatives over liberals. . . .

George Soros and Facebook, Soros using Facebook's new rules to bias what news people read

Because of misleading news coverage, a lot of Americans apparently already believe that "fake" news is a big problem (survey available here).  Here is some background on the changes in how Facebook will protect people from "fake" news.

Facebook has announced its plan to tackle fake news by harnessing fact checking and, potentially, making disputed stories appear lower in users’ News Feeds. . . . 

The social network announced Thursday that it will make it easier for users to report fake news when they see it, which they can do by clicking the upper right hand corner of a post. If enough people report a story as fake, Facebook will pass it to third-party fact-checking organizations that are part of the nonprofit Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network. 

Five fact-checking and news organizations are working with the company on this: ABC News, The Associated Press, FactCheck.org, Politifact and Snopes. Facebook says this group is likely to expand. . . .

For information on why this is a problem using these fact checkers see this article available here.

 But the problem gets even worse.  Enter George Soros who will be funding an organization to flag stories that he believes to be false and also to fund fact checking.

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with “third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles. . . . 

IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy. 

Poynter’s IFCN is also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.  Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the U.S. 

Another significant Poynter Institute donor is the Craig Newmark Foundation, the charitable organization established by Craigslist Founder Craig Newmark. On Monday, just days before the announcement of the Facebook partnership, Poynter issued a press release revealing that Newmark donated $1 million to the group to fund a faculty chair in journalism ethics. . . . .

and from the UK Daily Mail:

Billionaire Clinton donor George Soros is among a line-up of wealthy liberal figures who will fund Facebook's fake news fact checker.  

The 86-year-old Hungarian financier's Open Society Foundation is listed among organizations which are backing The International Fact Checking Network, the body tasked with flagging bogus news stories to social media users, on its website. 

Soros, a staunch Democrat who tried to block George W. Bush's campaign in 2004, has given $25million to Clinton and causes dear to her.  

Other donors involved in the new fact checking feature include eBay founder Pierre Omidyar who has committed more than $30million to the Clintons and their charities. Google, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy are also funding the pilot.   

The line-up feeds criticism from right-wing commentators that the new fact checking feature will be biased towards left-wing causes and could interfere with the social media feeds of millions of voters. . . .

Important: "Facebook And Instagram In Talks With Gun Control Advocates Seeking To Ban Gun Sales On Social Sites"

Bloomberg's two gun control groups (the Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action) are trying to convince Facebook and Instagram to stop allowing guns to be sold using their sites.

Two of the country’s most influential gun control groups are in talks with Facebook’s legal team in an effort to see gun sales banned on the world’s largest social network and its sister site Instagram.
Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America has partnered with Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns to put pressure on Facebook to prohibit the private selling or trading of guns on its platforms — a practice that’s as widespread as it is unregulated.
“Facebook and Instagram are enabling people to sell weapons, often with no questions asked and no background checks required,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ spokesperson Erika Soto Lamb. . . . .

Their attempt is to show some anecdotal examples instead of dealing with the issue of systematic effects.  Could the criminals have gotten weapons from other sources?  Does the ban raise the cost of law-abiding citizens getting guns?  Virtually all the people stopped by background checks are law-abiding citizens.  These are questions that aren't ever raised by gun control proponents.  Hopefully enough people will let Facebook and Instagram know their opposition to this change before it happens.

Want people on Facebook to see your posts?: Apparently, the biggest determining factor is whether you are willing to buy Facebook ads

From the Federalist:

If you manage your company’s Facebook page and have ever wondered how the Facebook news feed algorithm decides how many of your fans will see your content, then wonder no more. We’ve cracked the code (or we’ve at least cracked the code as it pertains to The Federalist’s Facebook page). And yes, for those of you who don’t feel like reading through the entire post or grappling with the math and statistics below, the Facebook news feed algorithm absolutely rewards the purchase of Facebook ads. 

According to our analysis, five simple variables explain the vast majority (nearly 75 percent) of how the Facebook news feed algorithm works: total likes, daily paid reach, site page views from Facebook, weekend vs. weekday, and posts per day. The full magnitude of each factor’s effect is discussed in detail below. . . . 

By all appearances, Facebook is rapidly implementing what economists call a two-part tariff: you pay once to get in the door, and then you pay again to talk to people who are already inside. Costco, credit cards that charge annual fees and interest on purchases, bars that charge both a cover and a per drink fee, and carnivals or amusement parks that charge an entrance fee and a per ride/game fee are examples of various businesses and products that utilize a two-part tariff pricing mechanism. . . .