For example: Until recently, $fb was exploring news-feed products to fight polarization. 1 reason it stalled: fears of anti-conservative bias after $fb research showed right-leaning users were less exposed to different points of view than those on the L.
(from image file)
Mr. Kaplan balked when briefed on internal Facebook research that found right-leaning users tended to be more polarized, or less exposed to different points of view, than those on the left, according to people familiar with the analysis. That internal research tracks with the findings of academic studies.
Mr. Kaplan, joined by other Facebook executives, argued that the efforts to mitigate polarization could disproportionately hurt conservative voices, triggering claims of bias and exposing Facebook to allegations of social-engineering, people familiar with his response said. He said
(end image file)
Kaplan is v involved in news-feed ranking changes, esp those around fake news, I’m told. He’s also argued that $FB should allow @DailyCaller’s fact-checking unit to join $fb’s fact-checking program. That was hugely controversial internally.
(from image file)
This summer, Mr. Kaplan pushed to partner with right-wing news site The Daily Caller's fact-checking division after conservatives accused Facebook of working only with mainstream publishers, people familiar with the discussions said. Conservative critics argued those publications had a built-in liberal bias.
(end image file)
$fb wouldn’t make Kaplan available to chat, but other senior execs said the policy’s increased involvement in product is about managing risk — and something employees are still getting used to.
BTW, if Kaplan sounds familiar, it’s bc he’s the $fb exec who sat behind Kavanaugh during his hearings about sexual misconduct allegations. (
https://wsj.com/articles/zuckerberg...es-appearance-at-kavanaugh-hearing-1538687361) Employees were / remain angry abt his appearance; some directly confronted him abt it
