Facebook refutes Gizmodo report that it was censoring conservative news

Facebook is not censoring the news and trends it shows users on the site's trending section, Facebook says.

That declaration comes on the heels of a Gizmodo story from Monday morning reporting that Facebook's human curators censor conservative news stories from appearing in the Trending Topics section. The report included a claim that those curators were encouraged to "artificially inject" stories into the trending section even if they weren't popular enough to merit inclusion.

Late Monday evening, Facebook exec Tom Stocky, the man in charge of the company's Trending section, posted a lengthy rebuttal to the Gizmodo report that claimed none of those things are true.

Stocky said that topics are surfaced via an algorithm, and human editors are used to sift through those topics to ensure their relevance and "disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes or subjects with insufficient sources," but are not asked to add their own stories.

"We do not insert stories artificially into trending topics, and do not instruct our reviewers to do so," he said.

Stocky also reiterated a shorter statement that Facebook shared earlier in the day specifically addressing the censorship claims. He said company guidelines did not allow curators to discriminate in topics based on political perspectives or the news outlet that reported them.

Stocky says that Facebook tracks its curators actions, and "violating our guidelines is a fireable offense."

Much of the media world was up in arms Monday about the social network's role in promoting certain stories. Facebook has long argued that it is a neutral platform, and that the almighty algorithm decides what content is suggested and appears in peoples' feeds. Gizmodo's report certainly put that idea on its head.

That's a big deal. Facebook drives a lot of traffic for publishers, but more importantly, its algorithm determines what information its 1.6 billion users see every month. A biased algorithm, or biased curators, could potentially push a specific political or social agenda. (Facebook says its feed is as “neutral” as possible, but the people who set the rules for the feed are biased, like all humans.)

Stocky's post aligns with what Facebook told Recode last August, which is that its human editors do not select content that appears in the trending section beyond simply "approving" it after it is surfaced by the algorithm.

Earlier in the evening, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus started a petition demanding Facebook respond to the story.

Here's Stocky's full post.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via