What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

One America News Service (OANS) questions (1 Viewer)

Basically FB said let's give CNN and NYT high NEQ scores, and then let's change the algorithm to promote posts from sources with high NEQ scores. Of course it "resulted" in promoting NYT and CNN, that was no accident or byproduct, that's what it was designed to do.
Wait, it seems that your conclusion is based on something that was not part of the link you provided.

Your link did not say anything about Facebook giving high scores before they changed the algorithm.

In fact, the article implies that the exact opposite took place. (Quote: "several days after the election, Mr. Zuckerberg agreed to increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores...It resulted in a spike in visibility for big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR")

Can you support the claim that Facebook gave CNN and NYT high scores before changing the algorithm?

 
Wait, it seems that your conclusion is based on something that was not part of the link you provided.

Your link did not say anything about Facebook giving high scores before they changed the algorithm.

In fact, the article implies that the exact opposite took place. (Quote: "several days after the election, Mr. Zuckerberg agreed to increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores...It resulted in a spike in visibility for big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR")

Can you support the claim that Facebook gave CNN and NYT high scores before changing the algorithm?
It was from the article. The NEQ scores already existed and the article explained what they were and how they were used before the changes. The recent change was to the weight of the scores. 

 
Wait, it seems that your conclusion is based on something that was not part of the link you provided.

Your link did not say anything about Facebook giving high scores before they changed the algorithm.

In fact, the article implies that the exact opposite took place. (Quote: "several days after the election, Mr. Zuckerberg agreed to increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores...It resulted in a spike in visibility for big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR")

Can you support the claim that Facebook gave CNN and NYT high scores before changing the algorithm?
It was from the article. The NEQ scores already existed and the article explained what they were and how they were used before the changes. The recent change was to the weight of the scores. 
The NEQ formula is secret. We don't know if scores are pre-assumed or if they are generated in real time on an article-by-article basis.

Without such data, it's erroneous to claim that the algorithm was changed to promote CNN or that Facebook said "let's give CNN and NYT high NEQ scores".

 
The NEQ formula is secret. We don't know if scores are pre-assumed or if they are generated in real time on an article-by-article basis.

Without such data, it's erroneous to claim that the algorithm was changed to promote CNN or that Facebook said "let's give CNN and NYT high NEQ scores".
I disagree but it really doesn't matter. The claim was made that these platforms don't make these sudden changes. I disputed that and gave several examples. I was then asked for a link on one and provided it. If you want to nitpick my brief summary of the entire article, knock yourself out.

But if you feel big tech isn't biased, or if you feel they don't make changes to promote that bias, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Cheers.

 
I disagree but it really doesn't matter. The claim was made that these platforms don't make these sudden changes. I disputed that and gave several examples. I was then asked for a link on one and provided it. If you want to nitpick my brief summary of the entire article, knock yourself out.

But if you feel big tech isn't biased, or if you feel they don't make changes to promote that bias, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Cheers.
Your own link said that Facebook's algorithm downgraded articles by Occupy Democrats. So it appears that the "bias," if it exists, is against low-quality material, not against political leaning.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
Basically FB said let's give CNN and NYT high NEQ scores
That is not what the article says. That’s exactly NOT what the article says. 

I don’t perform data analysis with the result in mind. I write inferencing algorithms and look at the results.

Why would any media source purposefully write analytics which would eliminate approximately 50% of the population from reading it?  This is the main reason FB has been staying out of the fact checking business.

Is it possible that the NYT is a better fact based journalism source than OANN?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top