Much has been made of the recent story that Facebook is more likely to promote left-wing political stories as trending in its news feed.
Conservatives have complained that their stories are essentially suppressed, and that Facebook’s promotional algorithm is not to blame.
Issues like this bring up questions about how we access language and how we encounter free speech.
In the US, the First Amendment protects speech from government interference, and whenever speech is curtailed, inevitably the argument devolves into claims of censorship.
Our ideas about news sources always having to be unbiased have two sources: one of those springs from ideals about what good journalism ought to be. The other comes from a long dead FCC rule that news broadcast over the public airwaves must always give equal time to opposing political views.
But even if that rule were still in place, Facebook is not a broadcaster. Like a newspaper, Facebook is a private company, and it can be as biased as it wants to be.
The First Amendment, rather than dictating that Facebook present politically balanced speech, assures the right of Facebook to promote liberal stories and suppress conservative ones. Facebook risks losing conservative business if it does, but by so doing it’s not violating anyone’s rights.
The problem arises when Americans want it both ways: we want strong private companies free from government interference, and we want to see speech we agree with promoted wherever our eyes may roam.
