< < Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesFacebook regularly deals with accusations of anti-conservative bias, but a new report suggests it may have been particularly forgiving. Washington Post sources say Facebook has limited punishment for Donald Trump allies who repeatedly violate rules against misinformation, in some cases removing strikes that could have led to reduced News Feed distribution or even bans. The social network pulled a repeat infraction claim against Donald Trump Jr. on Instagram due to fear of a “backlash” from the penalties that would follow, according to the reported insiders.Other Trump family members also had strikes removed, the sources said. A pro-Trump PAC (America First Action) and other organizations that have repeatedly posted known false information also appeared to have escaped consequences. Facebook said it would label some posts that break its rules, but the Post found examples of clearly false claims from Rush Limbaugh, Gateway Pundit and others that hadn’t received those disclaimers.Facebook spokeswoman Andrea Vallone didn’t directly challenge the report, noting the social media giant wouldn’t penalize accounts in “rare cases” when a rating wasn’t “appropriate or warranted.” The representative stressed that “many” pages the Post found had been punished for spreading falsehoods, but declined to say how or what the thresholds were to avoid opportunities for “gaming the system.”If accurate, the exceptions wouldn’t be surprising. Like Twitter and other internet heavyweights, Facebook is aware that Trump and Republicans currently hold power that could lead to regulation and other legal action. Trump’s order demanding a rethink of the Communications Decent Act’s Section 230 is widely considered retaliation against Twitter for fact-checking one of his posts, and Facebook itself caught flak from Senate Republicans for limiting a New York Post story making hotly disputed allegations against Joe Biden’s son Hunter.Stlll, this isn’t going to help quiet accusations that Facebook has separate standards for different people and groups. Critics have contended that Facebook is allowing misinformation to spread as a consequence, and that it shouldn’t have to fear retaliation when allegations of free speech violations haven’t held up in court. Its bid to please both sides of the American political discourse may have ultimately stoked tensions.

<

 

Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Facebook regularly deals with accusations of anti-conservative bias, but a new report suggests it may have been particularly forgiving. Washington Post sources say Facebook has limited punishment for Donald Trump allies who repeatedly violate rules against misinformation, in some cases removing strikes that could have led to reduced News Feed distribution or even bans. The social network pulled a repeat infraction claim against Donald Trump Jr. on Instagram due to fear of a “backlash” from the penalties that would follow, according to the reported insiders.

Other Trump family members also had strikes removed, the sources said. A pro-Trump PAC (America First Action) and other organizations that have repeatedly posted known false information also appeared to have escaped consequences. Facebook said it would label some posts that break its rules, but the Post found examples of clearly false claims from Rush Limbaugh, Gateway Pundit and others that hadn’t received those disclaimers.

Facebook spokeswoman Andrea Vallone didn’t directly challenge the report, noting the social media giant wouldn’t penalize accounts in “rare cases” when a rating wasn’t “appropriate or warranted.” The representative stressed that “many” pages the Post found had been punished for spreading falsehoods, but declined to say how or what the thresholds were to avoid opportunities for “gaming the system.”

If accurate, the exceptions wouldn’t be surprising. Like Twitter and other internet heavyweights, Facebook is aware that Trump and Republicans currently hold power that could lead to regulation and other legal action. Trump’s order demanding a rethink of the Communications Decent Act’s Section 230 is widely considered retaliation against Twitter for fact-checking one of his posts, and Facebook itself caught flak from Senate Republicans for limiting a New York Post story making hotly disputed allegations against Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

Stlll, this isn’t going to help quiet accusations that Facebook has separate standards for different people and groups. Critics have contended that Facebook is allowing misinformation to spread as a consequence, and that it shouldn’t have to fear retaliation when allegations of free speech violations haven’t held up in court. Its bid to please both sides of the American political discourse may have ultimately stoked tensions.

< < Chinnapong via Getty ImagesFact checking is increasingly a mainstay of the modern internet, and that now includes ‘dead’ web pages. The Internet Archive has started adding fact checks and context to Wayback Machine pages to explain just why they were removed. If a page was part of a disinformation campaign or pulled due to a policy violation, a conspicuous yellow banner will explain as much.The checks come from a variety of well-established outlets, including FactCheck.org, Politifact, the AP and the Washington Post.The archivists saw the fact checks as striking a balance between historical preservation and acknowledging the problems with resurfacing false info. It hoped users would “better understand what they are reading” in the archives. It’s also striving for neutrality — one banner for context explained that including a page in the Wayback Machine “should not be seen” as endorsing the content.This move won’t please people who’ve accused internet companies of political bias, whether or not it’s justified. Even ‘dead’ pages are now subject to scrutiny, after all. It might be necessary in ghe long run, however. It’s an acknowledgment that political material on the web rarely exists in a vacuum, and that future visitors might not always know why a page vanished from the ‘live’ web.

<

 

Chinnapong via Getty Images

Fact checking is increasingly a mainstay of the modern internet, and that now includes ‘dead’ web pages. The Internet Archive has started adding fact checks and context to Wayback Machine pages to explain just why they were removed. If a page was part of a disinformation campaign or pulled due to a policy violation, a conspicuous yellow banner will explain as much.

The checks come from a variety of well-established outlets, including FactCheck.org, Politifact, the AP and the Washington Post.

The archivists saw the fact checks as striking a balance between historical preservation and acknowledging the problems with resurfacing false info. It hoped users would “better understand what they are reading” in the archives. It’s also striving for neutrality — one banner for context explained that including a page in the Wayback Machine “should not be seen” as endorsing the content.

This move won’t please people who’ve accused internet companies of political bias, whether or not it’s justified. Even ‘dead’ pages are now subject to scrutiny, after all. It might be necessary in ghe long run, however. It’s an acknowledgment that political material on the web rarely exists in a vacuum, and that future visitors might not always know why a page vanished from the ‘live’ web.

< < Facebook has repeatedly overruled its own fact checkers in order to help conservative pages avoid punishment for spreading misinformation. That’s according to leaked documents reported by NBC News, which found evidence that employees regularly intervene in the company’s fact-checking process to avoid the “PR risk” associated with punishing high-profile conservatives.When Facebook’s third-party fact checkers mark something as false, the post is given less distribution in News Feed to make it harder for people to see it. Pages that repeatedly share posts that are debunked by fact checkers get “strikes.” Facebook punishes pages that get too many strikes by down-ranking their content, and blocking their ability to run ads.People who run popular pages with large followings are able to appeal fact-checking decisions. And when conservatives who have criticized the social network for being biased against them appeal these decisions, Facebook has reportedly flagged the issue as requiring “escalation.” It’s then that Facebook’s team, “with direct oversight from company leadership,” steps in.“The list and descriptions of the escalations, leaked to NBC News, showed that Facebook employees in the misinformation escalations team, with direct oversight from company leadership, deleted strikes during the review process that were issued to some conservative partners for posting misinformation over the last six months,” NBC writes. “The discussions of the reviews showed that Facebook employees were worried that complaints about Facebook's fact-checking could go public and fuel allegations that the social network was biased against conservatives.”Pages for Breitbart, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, the Gateway Pundit and Diamond and Silk have all gotten a pass under this process, according to NBC.In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson said the company’s policy allows it to “determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences,” but didn’t elaborate on the process.“We defer to third-party fact-checkers on the rating that a piece of content receives. When a fact checker applies a rating, we apply a label and demotion,” the spokesperson said. “But we are responsible for how we manage our internal systems for repeat offenders. We apply additional system wide penalties for multiple false ratings, including demonetization and the inability to advertise, unless we determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences. To this day, we remain the only company that partners with over 70 fact-checking organizations to apply fact-checks to millions of pieces of content.”The report from NBC comes one day after BuzzFeed News also found that Facebook officials, including Brett Kavanaugh bff and global policy head Joel Kaplan, had intervened in order to help prominent conservatives get fact checks removed or otherwise avoid consequences for sharing misinformation. The social network later fired an employee who questioned these decisions on internal forums, according to BuzzFeed.

<

 Facebook has repeatedly overruled its own fact checkers in order to help conservative pages avoid punishment for spreading misinformation. That’s according to leaked documents reported by NBC News, which found evidence that employees regularly intervene in the company’s fact-checking process to avoid the “PR risk” associated with punishing high-profile conservatives.

When Facebook’s third-party fact checkers mark something as false, the post is given less distribution in News Feed to make it harder for people to see it. Pages that repeatedly share posts that are debunked by fact checkers get “strikes.” Facebook punishes pages that get too many strikes by down-ranking their content, and blocking their ability to run ads.

People who run popular pages with large followings are able to appeal fact-checking decisions. And when conservatives who have criticized the social network for being biased against them appeal these decisions, Facebook has reportedly flagged the issue as requiring “escalation.” It’s then that Facebook’s team, “with direct oversight from company leadership,” steps in.

“The list and descriptions of the escalations, leaked to NBC News, showed that Facebook employees in the misinformation escalations team, with direct oversight from company leadership, deleted strikes during the review process that were issued to some conservative partners for posting misinformation over the last six months,” NBC writes. “The discussions of the reviews showed that Facebook employees were worried that complaints about Facebook's fact-checking could go public and fuel allegations that the social network was biased against conservatives.”

Pages for Breitbart, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, the Gateway Pundit and Diamond and Silk have all gotten a pass under this process, according to NBC.

In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson said the company’s policy allows it to “determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences,” but didn’t elaborate on the process.

“We defer to third-party fact-checkers on the rating that a piece of content receives. When a fact checker applies a rating, we apply a label and demotion,” the spokesperson said. “But we are responsible for how we manage our internal systems for repeat offenders. We apply additional system wide penalties for multiple false ratings, including demonetization and the inability to advertise, unless we determine that one or more of those ratings does not warrant additional consequences. To this day, we remain the only company that partners with over 70 fact-checking organizations to apply fact-checks to millions of pieces of content.”

The report from NBC comes one day after BuzzFeed News also found that Facebook officials, including  Brett Kavanaugh bff and global policy head Joel Kaplan, had intervened in order to help prominent conservatives get fact checks removed or otherwise avoid consequences for sharing misinformation. The social network later fired an employee who questioned these decisions on internal forums, according to BuzzFeed.