Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006?rev=1462799465508 <comment><USER3> I have no great love of conservative politics, but there's a convincing argument to be made that their ideas and views are routinely suppressed by media outside of explicitly partisan media outlets (i.e. Fox News or talk radio).

There are a number of studies that back up this claim. A 2008 study[0] found that 88% of journalists donate to the Democratic party. Jonathan Haidt has shown[1] that non-economics social sciences skew more than 14-1 liberal to conservative (and that universities have not always been so skewed).

For anyone who believes these statistics are not based on overt discrimination based on political viewpoint, a recent study[2] showed that discrimination by party is stronger than that of race. The study did so by reproducing a landmark study that demonstrated the existence of unconscious racial bias (the implicit association test), but instead using political indicators. They found that partisan political positions triggered implicit associations 50% stronger than that of racial biases. There is also a recent book called "Passing on the Right"[3] which provides some personal narratives of conservative academics.

If you're relying on academic knowledge to provide you a sense of reality, you're viewing reality through a lens that is biased to a 93% degree towards one political pole, and then receiving that knowledge through a media system which is biased to an 88% degree towards that same political pole.

Even if you, like me, generally believe that the liberal political position is correct, ideological conformity of this magnitude should frighten you.

[0] [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/130902](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/130902)

[1] [http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack- of-...](http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political- diversity/)

[2] [https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group- po...](https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group- polarization.pdf)

[3] [https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book- deta...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book-details- realities-being-conservative-professor-humanities-and-social)

<comment><USER4> This "seems" like an American phenomenon. As a liberal, I can have a fully formed debate with a British Conservative, A Canadian conservative, a European conservative (sans latent Nazism), however the dominant American conservative seems to be operating on a completely different plain and set of assumptions. I find it extremely difficult to relate to and debate the American conservative. In general, if an american <insert institution here> (college, newspaper etc.) seems uber-liberal in America, it is just run-of-the-mill centrist in most other countries. Not because of any stated or unstated institutional biases, but simply because its been labelled so by a relentless, uncompromising, hyper-focussed and hugely disciplined conservative media looking for easy answers.

P.S: Also the predilection to openly say "Compromise is impossible", esp behind the scenes, also seems to be a unique attribute of the American Conservative.

<comment><USER5> Many American liberals are just as hard-headed and difficult to debate with. The Overton Window has shifted in the past couple years and the original leftists are now centrists. America has become radically polarized and the radical liberals and just as dangerous and closed-minded as the radical conservatives.

You should also bear in mind that you're commenting on an article where liberals deliberately censored conservative news media. That doesn't do much to support your assertions.

The fact that the American leftist view would be considered centrist in most other countries (like, for example, the nordic countries) is essentially meaningless. Just because "left" takes on different meanings or extremes in different parts of the world doesn't mean that the US is behind or should become more left. To compare US politics to those of Finland, Switzerland, or even Canada is completely absurd. We are a fundamentally different people, system, land mass, you name it. Our political system must take that into account.

<comment><USER4> Point being, Facebook's audience is majority international and it most of all wants to make money. If you occam's razor this, Facebook is simply presenting people with what they want to hear (a well-proven phenomenon[1]). The report has shown nothing to prove that there is some sort of committee that decides which political stances facebook is going to shove down people's throats, but we know it has MULTIPLE groups trying to increase engagement. The international community believes that the American right is nuts, voila, Facebook selectively presents this as the dominant news. Click, click, click...PROFIT.

[1]:[https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_b...](https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles?language=en))

<comment><USER5> I totally see what you're saying, but that's not what happened here. This was deliberate and subjective curation by a group of similarly politically minded individuals, despite the fact that the feed appeared to be organic. They were pushing a political agenda in the US.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I can see how this can be interpreted as that but I don't see any evidence of this in the report. All it says is, some un-named higher up sometimes made the call of what to show and what to not? Based on what? Liberal talking points or carefully measured clickbait titles that had previously led to more user engagement. Given their recent earnings report, what is more likely?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [Disclosure: I'm an ex-FB employee.]

This is a bit of a click-bait title, and is somewhat true -- but not in the way you think.

When FB was developing hashtags and content features, there was a concern that it is tough to find a middle-ground between 100% purely algorithmic generated content (i.e. leverage tastes data and supply articles suited to your interests) and 100% curated content (i.e. leverage tastes data, but only show articles from "reputable" sources and/or highly rated content, over shitty blog posts from amateurs.) The latter tends to do really well for engagement, as users can trust that the content they're seeing is reputable and popular. However the big concern that a number of us were raising was that tech companies have employees that are very biased in ways that they cannot control: they're younger, more liberal, and somewhat higher income, than the average FB user.

In my time there, I never heard of _explicit_ suppression of any viewpoints - with the exception of recent disagreements around the "Black Lives Matter" protests, the first time that I encountered a situation where disagreeing meant you were labelled a "racist" \- but I can see why well-intentioned product and policy decisions led FB content down this hole.

<comment><USER7> Crazy, there was someone who just posted a rant against BLM in response to this s3r3nity's comment and it was deleted like two minutes ago. Does HN suffer from the same censorship that Facebook does?

<comment> some-guy Nothing wrong with that -- as HN readers we can flag / downvote comments and perform our own collective self-censorship (for better or worse).

<comment><USER8> except when HN readers flag comments they show up as dead and are in grey text, whereas this was entirely deleted

<comment><USER9> The poster can delete their post within 2 hours, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The American two-party system is so weird. It tries to condense a complex matrix of sometimes-overlapping and fluid opinion scales -- socially conservative vs. socially liberal, globalist vs. protectionist, environmentalist vs. laissez-faire capitalist, and so on -- into one binary value. And somehow people have become convinced that not only is such a binary scale meaningful, but also the only available choice.

In many European democracies there's a functional multi-party system where parties appear and disappear over time to reflect voters' opinions. For example, there might be a protectionist right-wing party that's favored by farmers, and another one that supports free trade and listens to big business. Same happens on all the axes. Governments are formed as coalitions of these "SMB-sized" parties based on the votes. It's not "winner takes all", but rather "winners and not-so-bad-losers negotiate to find common ground".

What if the Republican and Democratic parties would break up into 6-10 new parties to better represent the actual opinions of the existing divisions within these parties?

Statistics like "88% of journalists are anti-conservative" show how difficult it's to say anything meaningful about a polarized political field. To look at it another way, that 12% is roughly the level of support that extreme right- wing political parties enjoy in Europe these days. Lumping 88% of European voters together as one party would be ridiculous because that party would contain both former communists and free-trade globalists.

<comment><USER4> Agreed, and to me, this is a direct result of media organizations' extreme biases in America. This seems to be the missing link. I don't know of many non-American hyper-conservative media organizations that have directly tied their profit motive to how virulently their viewers believe that POV and are WILDLY successful at it.

<comment><USER11> No, it's a result of the voting system. It will never change unless the Constitution changes. The best you can hope for without constitutional change is something like Britain; i.e. still a two-party system but less extreme differences. I think the extreme differences in the US vs the UK is less because of the media (british media is nastier than US in many ways) and more because UK society is more unified.

<comment><USER12> > It will never change unless the Constitution changes.

Not necessarily, there's still quite a lot of wiggle-room: Except for some narrow areas (Electoral College, impeachment, vacancies, etc.) the Constitution doesn't narrowly define votes as single data-points.

If nothing else, individual states can use "better than plurality" systems to determine their picks for State and Federal legislature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hate how Silicon Valley culture makes it seem like they are all for freedom of information and how the big bad government is censoring and surveilling things from a bunch of innocent hackers (startup guys) when in reality if given the opportunity this crowd does the EXACT same thing. I have limited respect for either party

<comment><USER14> Tech companies are not immune to the negative side effects that come with large centralized institutions, even if it started in Silicon Valley. I don't believe we're ignorant to this fact.

We tend to rally against centralization and attempts to control information. Which is exactly why this is frontpage on HN.

FB has been consistently attacked for this type of stuff for years. That's a healthy sign of our community valuing freedom/markets/algorithms over the risks of handing over large amounts of power to a few humans. It seems even Facebook even values this approach as their own technology reaches parity with human curation:

> Several former curators said that as the trending news algorithm improved, > there were fewer instances of stories being injected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The issue is that FB advertises itself as "conduit" or "network connection". You log in, communicate with people and the site tools, FB runs ads on your eyeballs, etc.

Similar to how I give my electricity provider money, and they give me electricity.

Now FB clearly sees themselves as (let's be honest) a "power broker" or "rain maker". Not the same as "utility" or "network connection" or "conduit".

<comment><USER16> I don't think I've looked at Facebook like that at all since they started using an algorithmic newsfeed. I was under the impression that that confirmed them as a "power broker" to pretty much everyone. If you're looking for a "utility" or "network connection" I'd direct you to app.net if they're even still in business

<comment><USER17> Twitter even, for the most part as far as I understand gives you complete control over your feed, with the (minor?) exceptions of promoted tweets and suggested followers.

It's worth noting the candidate who has been most successful (or at least taken advantage of it) on that platform might fit the parent article's definition of conservative (or at least the sort of content they are suppressing).

<comment><USER18> Hasn't Twitter recently been tweaking user feeds based on algorithms? Pretty sure I've been seeing mine out of order, with all manner of "you might have missed" and "stuff we think is relevant to you" tweets injected at the top. I think I recently had to flip a setting to try turning off this "stuff we think is relevant to you" off. Maybe that's the promoted tweets, or are those the ads?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I, and most of my friends, are liberal minded. After The Guardian established a policy of (ironically) closing comments on their Comment Is Free section when the article relates to refugees or Muslims, I decided to include sites like Fox, Breitbart etc. into my daily feed. (I found the reflex to stifle debate deplorable and wanted to step outside the echo chamber).

Discussions with friends have become more interesting for sure as I reveal their biases.

From defending real violence over threats of violence, (Trump rallies and protests) to ignoring crime statistics, to just being woefully ignorant of what position the other side actually holds, it's incredible to see just how steadfast the Left can be in their ignorance.

</comment><comment><USER20> Reading this must make China feel they made the right decision in banning Facebook. Not that they care about liberal v. conservative, but having their population manipulated by a cabal of Ivy Leaguers is a non-starter. The Chinese will run their own manipulation program, thank you very much.

Other governments may be starting to come to the same conclusion.

</comment><comment><USER21> Some newspapers have well known left or right leanings. But its declared and out in the open. Most people thought Facebook news was organically trending. That's the difference here.

<comment><USER22>
      > Most people thought Facebook news was organically trending.

"They trust me. Dumb fucks."

<comment><USER23> Protocol #12:4 - "NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. All news items are received by a few agencies from all parts of the world. These agencies will be entirely in our control and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It has been blatantly clear something is up with their Trending algorithm when you notice there is a Trending: Hillary Clinton header on top of every single shared Bernie Sanders article. Never once have I seen a Trending: Bernie Sander header.

<comment><USER25> Given Facebook's influence and the sheer size of their userbase, the potential long-term implications of this particular kind of manipulation are... unsettling.

<comment><USER26> I am not surprised Facebook has been doing this.

It's ironic. Silicon Valley is all about question the authorities. Ask why.

And now we hear stories like these Orwellian like practices...

This will be another interesting topic historians will examine years from now. What happens when an outsider/outcast/underdog group becomes the insiders/powerful. Do they act like tycoons in the past (using power to preserve itself) or keep true to the spirit of outsider/outcast that may lead to its demise?

I vote for Silicon Valley powers becoming like the past tycoons.

<comment><USER27> I once watched a group of pigeons in a park fight for food. The biggest pigeon bullied all the other pigeons. I thought that was unfair... he was getting all the food. So I shooed him away. Immediately afterwards, one of the formerly bullied pigeons became the new bully.

Power is a funny thing... and I suspect people aren't so different than other animals in this regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's crazy how Facebook and Google could tip the scale during Election Year [http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google- co...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig- the-2016-election-121548)

</comment><comment><USER29> This seems like a story built specifically for a segment on Fox News where the newscasters feign shock and horror that their news topics aren't being covered by "mainstream media".

Of course trending news is curated. All hell would break loose otherwise.

There is no shortage of rabid political content conservative or otherwise on Facebook. A good part of the end user community would rather not deal with it.

<comment><USER30> An angry conservative who worked at Facebook was shocked and horrified when he was instructed to remove the breitbart 'story' about how Obama is actually a secret Muslim terrorist from Benghazi and is throwing a hissy fit all over the internet.

Not necessarily the case, but this is certainly my initial assessment of the situation without learning more.

<comment><USER31> Yeah, without some concrete examples it's hard to know exactly what is going on here.

That said, Facebook is certainly not coming out of this smelling like roses. The "Top Stories" mode is horrible, and Facebook tries really really hard to force you into it, especially on mobile. IMHO it is going to be the death of them in the long term. When they're yet another Friendster/MySpace/etc... this is what I'm going to point to.

<comment><USER32> when did myspace algorithmically autosort news stories? the products arent even in the same category.

<comment><USER31> In terms of now defunct social networks...

Ok, Myspace isn't technically dead, but its heyday is definitely over.

<comment><USER32> but youre comparing two completely different products that get lumped into the same "social network" category, when really the have very little in common anymore.

myspace had profiles, that was it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Regardless of political opinion, I think it's disgraceful to only show biased views.

<comment><USER34> I disagree - It's a private company's prerogative to display whatever content they wish - A competitor could choose to suppress liberal articles.

As long as they are not breaking any relevant speech laws, then I see nothing wrong with their actions. If we shut down all biased media, all we'd really be left with is the BBC (although a large number of people would disagree here)

<comment><USER35> They absolutely have a right to display what they want. However, just as Fox News gets slammed for claiming to be "fair and balanced", Facebook should be shown the same contempt for claiming their news is in any way an actual representation of what is trending on Facebook. They have a right to do it, but that doesn't mean users have to be ok with it. Furthermore, I would much rather have a biased editorial process that is run by people that have at least been exposed to so form of media ethics, than a bunch of tech managers telling recent Ivy-league graduates what to curate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It really bothers me that acceptable forms of protests are now: intimidation(1), harassment(2), and subversion(this).

If your cause is just, isn't a non-violent protest enough? Speaking about it, voting with your dollar, etc?

1) [http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox- be...](http://gizmodo.com/okcupid-tells-users-not-to-use-firefox-because-of- ceos-1555616237)

2)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy)

<comment><USER37> I see no intimidation for (1), just a straightforward statement of preference. (2) is not considered acceptable. And I'm going to bet that this behavior is not going to be considered acceptable either. Certainly the linked story doesn't portray it as acceptable, and at the moment nearly every HN comment here is critical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The problem is, as a private company, should Facebook choose to manipulate it's news feed algorithm to promote one candidate or the other, or for whatever reason, this would be its prerogative under the First Amendment. I personally choose to not use Facebook specifically for these reasons. Even though I know many Facebook employees personally, I don't trust it's employees to divorce their own interests and their powerful position as Facebook's curators.

<comment><USER39> Any democratic country depends on the quality of public discourse for the effectiveness of its political system, and for this reason many countries have special rules for newspapers and TV.

What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be covered by those laws.

One defence Facebook might consider is to say that it simply reflects the preferences of its readers algorithmically. However, this article shows that is not the case, and that the company does exercise editorial judgement. Of course, the design of the algorithms is tacit editorialising anyway, so the whole point is moot to me.

While we are considering the fact that FB is a private company (actually a public company), some might be inclined to say that if users realise Facebook cannot be trusted, then they will leave the site causing its revenues to decrease. Other more honest and transparent competitors will take its place. However, in practise there are many reasons to think this won't happen, which is why we have special laws for the press in the first place.

<comment><USER40> > What's important here is that Facebook is not covered by those laws, simply > because it did not exist when the laws were created. In my view it should be > covered by those laws.

Is Fox "News" covered by these laws? Surely you're not suggesting with a straight face that Fox News is "fair and balanced" ?

<comment><USER5> Are you suggesting with a straight face that CNN "News" is fair and balanced? Or perhaps any of the myriad of blatantly politically charged companies out of Silicon Valley?

It happens on both sides, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the left is much more guilty of this than the right. Fox News has become a meme because it is the only mainstream news source that blatantly shows conservative bias. Try pointing to mainstream news sources that blatantly show liberal bias and you'd lose count.

<comment><USER41> > Are you suggesting with a straight face that CNN "News" is fair and > balanced?

No, it just has slightly weaker right-wing bias than Fox.

<comment><USER42> That's why they support Hillary.

<comment><USER43> CNN (and many other media companies) support Hillary because they are pro- corporate and pro-status-quo.

They have _de facto_ supported nonsensical positions because CNN pioneered the "two sides to every argument" stupidity in their effort to look "unbiased". CNN's reporting is heavily distorted, but the distortion is usually giving credibility when it isn't deserved. Fox simply pushes their agenda directly, while CNN gives cranks a stage no matter how stupid their position is, because calling out even the obviously wrong is "biased". Often this involves conservative opinions (for varying definitions of "conservative"), but almost every opinion of every topic gets the same treatment from CNN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > "It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on > who the curator is and what time of day it is," said the former curator.

> Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing > conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics > or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the > omissions as a function of his colleagues' judgements; there is no evidence > that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at > work.

It sounds like any issues were from curators who weren't being adequately supervised, instead of top-down orders from executives at Facebook.

This is different than what the current Hacker News headline suggests. Can we all collectively read the article and understand that the issue is different than our preconceptions lead us to believe?

<comment><USER45> Or Facebook has learned the art of Plausible Deniability.

If the bias happens during hiring (by preferring candidates who naturally lean left), then Facebook merely needs to give them curation power without giving explicit instructions.

<comment><USER44> This sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to take very seriously. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence.

<comment><USER45> > The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that "we need to do some work" on > curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. "Are you working > on this?" Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the > affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

[http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on- hot-m...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic- pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I am a conservative and I see nothing wrong with this. It is their software and their servers, after all.

I _want_ a collapse in trust in the major social networks. This is the internet we are talking about. Let them suppress, and let them see what happens.

<comment><USER47> If this was a partisan media outlet like CNN, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, etc etc ad nauseam or FOX news (is there any other conservative network?), then yeah this would be expected.

The issue here is for the 'unsuspecting user' Facebook doesn't present itself as a partisan resource. There's nothing 'wrong' with this per se as long as the user understands who they are dealing with, which articles like this one help in that respect.

<comment><USER48> > FOX news (is there any other conservative network?)

Not on TV. Fox Business has quite a lot of libertarians (and some really, really devote Trump supporters). CNN did hire some conservatives who are actual conservatives recently (e.g. Mary Katharine Ham), but it really doesn't change the editorial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'd be interested to know a little bit more about how this relates to the news sites that are covering the story. Breitbart isn't much better than a tabloid --arguably worse, even. It's equivalent to leftwing sites like Alternet, which I also wouldn't expect Facebook to be comfortable linking to.

<comment><USER50> The article says they censor the Drudge Report, which is much more reliable than Breitbart.

<comment><USER49> I'm confused by this comment, because to my eyes the Drudge Report frontpage looks like it was consciously modeled on tabloids. Obviously for historical reasons they have some importance--but so do some tabloids.

To clarify, I think this an issue of respectability, not reliability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Keep in mind that this allegation is coming from a single conservative curator who no longer works there.

And even he seems pretty indecisive about it being an institutional bias: "I'd come on shift and I'd discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn't be trending because either the curator didn't recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz."

If Facebook is trying to suppress conservative news, they're doing a terrible job of it. I see far more Trump than I would like.

<comment><USER52> > Keep in mind that this allegation is coming from a single conservative > curator who no longer works there.

This is false, the headline even alludes to it being more than a single source. The entire article uses plural terms and refers to 'several.' I think you read the lede, but skipped the rest.

<comment><USER53> From the article:

> Other former curators interviewed by Gizmodo denied consciously suppressing > conservative news, and we were unable to determine if left-wing news topics > or sources were similarly suppressed. The conservative curator described the > omissions as a function of his colleagues' judgements; there is no evidence > that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at > work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The more I hear about what Facebook has become, the less I like it.

Previously we heard that they run experiments to alter users news feeds to see if they could alter their mood, now we learn they're engaging in what is basically propaganda by suppressing certain viewpoints. And all this for what? So that you can be advertised to while you waste your time on the internet. What a terrible company. Speaks ill of humanity that it is so popular.

</comment><comment><USER55> Anecdotal: apparently this isn't work for me. My news feed is FILLed with conservative election news. How can I enable this feature ;)

<comment><USER26> Apparently you are too conservative according to Facebook? Or too many friends that are conservative?

<comment><USER56> He probably has too many conservative friends. FB seems to think that just because you've "friended" people that you want to see, and agree with, all the inane political bullshit they post.

One of many reasons I don't use FB. I keep an account on there for a few reasons, but I almost never actually look at it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> People are people. In a way this isn't news at all.

The problem is that these companies are hiding behind the "But it's all just an algorithm" defense, when, in fact, as we all suspected, there are real people behind the scenes slanting things.

My gut tells me that a lot of tech companies are subtly controlling the types of news their consumers get. Overall this is probably a good thing -- helps keep the quality high. But I'm a libertarian. If a bunch of left-leaning folks start controlling what I consume from a political angle and not just quality angle -- and then lie about it? Really pisses me off.

Yes, you're a private company. Do whatever you want. It's the lying that's the problem here -- and the implication that the electorate needs people better than they are to control and guide what they're allowed to talk about.

I bet we continue to hear about this, and in places most people would never suspect, over the coming decade or two. This is unacceptable, and something is going to need to give somewhere.

<comment><USER18> Genuinely curious:

As a libertarian, are you equally pissed off when a bunch of right-leaning folks start controlling what you consume from a political, and not just quality, angle—and then lie about it?

<comment><USER26> Yes libertarians would be pissed if right-leaners control news. But the topic here is facebook. Let's stay on topic.

<comment><USER58> Stop telling people what the topic is, please. This is a public forum, you can't control other people's conversations, or determine the validity of their interests.

Post a comment about Facebook that's worth replying to if you want to steer things away from politics.

<comment><USER26> @krapp

EDIT: I said stay on topic, because some will try to go tangent to prevent meaningful discussion on the real topic. Much like politicians not answering questions. This achieves one's goal of causing FUD to keep the person/organization's brand from getting tarnished.

If facebook comes out saying it's not true, will anyone really believe them, knowing their past practices?

Facebook has a lot of eyeballs looking and thus influence, and so the higher- ups there now want to use it to influence others. Much like celebrities do.

And they got to such position of influence using not so good tactics. Are people ok with this? My guess is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> TL;DR 'Trending News' is actually 'Curated News'

<comment><USER18> Thanks to a tool that specifically allows modifying the news shown to users and the alleged biases of curator contractors who seem to have no accountability checks.

<comment><USER60> I wouldn't say "no accountability checks." The article references instances where the curators were instructed to boost non-trending stories. So, they are being actively managed. And, presumably can be replaced easily if their curating deviates from Facebook's wishes.

<comment><USER18> I suppose I meant enforcement of a policy that prohibited modifying the news identified by algorithms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Let's actually examine the claims:

 _Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder._

What scandals were being discussed yet suppressed from the "trending news" list out of these examples? How many of these examples are actual news stories? The IRS thing turned out to be overblown bullshit, what about the rest of them?

When was the last time you heard your friends talking about Scott Walker, the guy who flopped in the polls and dropped out of the race _before a single primary_?

It shouldn't be surprising if these curators decided to wait to see if a story being shared from breitbart.com was reported by bigger news outlets first. Many of these so-called conservative media outlets have a terrible record on reporting actual news.

It is possible that Facebook suppresses actual news. It is also possible that this source (falsely) believed that not-really-news-or-trending stories were "suppressed" when in fact they were just not popular or smelt like bullshit.

<comment><USER61> > What scandals were being discussed yet suppressed from the "trending news" > list out of these examples? How many of these examples are actual news > stories? The IRS thing turned out to be overblown bullshit, what about the > rest of them?

Is that actually true? The IRS' claim that every drive containing copies of the emails failed makes anything I hear from their side completely non- credible, in my opinion. Technically there is a chance of 100% drive failure, so I can't claim with complete certainty that they're full of it, but I think there were at least three 9s of the claim being bullshit the last time I ran through the numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I always use uBlock's "element picker" to block out trending topic lists as I find them somewhat manipulative.

1) I do sometimes suspect biased curation 2) They can be astroturfed 3) Even if spontaneous there's a virtual mob mentality that comes with trending topics.

Trending topic lists are ok if they're on their own separate page but when you have it upfront the subtext is "this is what you must care or know about".

</comment><comment><USER52> I am confused why Facebook needs news curators to begin with? Why can't the news just be organic entirely and use ML to curate it per person. I can understand blacklisting certain sites or topics just for pure sanity or appropriateness. Having people as curators just seems like wasted capital.

Anyhow, I find this abhorrent, but I think Facebook has every right to do it as a private entity. I don't think they have a social responsibility to be 100% even. What does bother me is that they claim to be evenhanded, I do want transparency, especially when you are basically the monopoly in social media (excluding Snapchat and Twitter, they own everything.)

This also presents a problem, I think with Twitter's new algorithmic timeline and why the real-time feed is vastly superior for their model (I'll beat this dead horse until Jack realizes how dumb it is.)

</comment><comment><USER24> What happened to the other thread on this?

<comment><USER63> Hint: FB is not the only place that has heavy censorhsip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> If you actually read the article it says "there is no evidence that Facebook management mandated or was even aware of any political bias at work". In other words this title is click-bait bullshit, it was up to the curators discretion.

</comment><comment><USER65> Note that the source for this is a single self-identified conservative ex- contractor.

<comment><USER66> That is not true.

"Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right- wing news sources. "It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively."

<comment><USER67> Try posting a link to a Breitbart story here on HN. It's silently suppressed. Doesn't even appear in 'new'. Whereas links to rt.com are welcome. That's just how things are, comrade! :)

My previous rant: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518592)

<comment><USER68> Because Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sensationalist sources of nonsense on the Internet, right up there with Infowars.

The fact is the truth isn't somewhere in the middle. We shouldn't be encouraging disingenuous assholes by giving them a platform to spread deliberate lies and mis-information, no matter whether that source is "conservative" or "liberal".

<comment><USER67> I'm actually quite proud of my Breitbart submission. I thought it was a newsworthy story, that added valuable additional information to a topic we had been discussing.

But yeah, let's just call everyone we disagree with "disingenuous assholes". The Breitbart story I tried to submit was: [http://www.breitbart.com/big- government/2015/09/07/exclusive...](http://www.breitbart.com/big- government/2015/09/07/exclusive-displaced-cast-member-how-disney-replaced-me- other-americans-with-cheap-foreigners-on-h1b-visas/)

Try clicking on this HN link: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182135](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182135)

You can't even see the link at all as an anonymous user. I don't know if it shows up for people to have 'showdead' enabled, or if it's equivalent of a hellban, where I'm the only one who can see it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> See also: [http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/careers/careersnews/9117323/fa...](http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/careers/careersnews/9117323/facebook- suppressed-right-wing-news-stories)

Facebook deleted my friend John Dickson's post, so this happens. I don't agree with John's post, but I don't expect civil (if I feel misguided) discourse to be deleted. I want to be able to speak to the person and state my position, and have them clarify there's, and so on - you know, free discourse and dissemination of ideas!

</comment><comment><USER70> > When users weren't reading stories that management viewed as important, > several former workers said, curators were told to put them in the trending > news feed anyway.

Maybe a goal here is to try to ensure that the FB community does not _appear to outsiders_ to be a right-wing, conservative, un-cool community.

If the FB user base were seen as a collection of mainstream, or even right-of- center, people, it would be bad for business. A lot of observers and decision- makers in industry might spend their ad dollars somewhere else.

</comment><comment><USER71> > _The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were > directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module._

Heh, not really a big surprise to me. Rule probably doesn't apply to whenever MZ makes a big announcement though. Betting those got stuck high in the rankings from day 1. Anyway, sounds about right for any image-protective service, or, you know, typical state-run-media censorship.

</comment><comment><USER72> What if it were liberal news? This is basically the filter bubble problem. All filters have biases whether they are human or algorithmic.

<comment><USER73> This is basically the monopoly problem.

The problem isn't that FB is slanted, but that FB has a near-monopoly on user attention, which allows its slant to be both covert and disproportionately influential.

If FB was one of a selection of companies competing in the same space, political bias would be less of an issue, because it would be more like the print magazine and blog space.

But then you have the problem that the US gov has an entire network of foundations, think-tanks, blogs, PR companies, astroturfers, bought-and-paid- for journalists, and other "thought leaders" who exist solely to present a specific agenda - usually a pro-corporate one.

In the same way that you can't argue with the Fed, you can't argue with a state-organised propaganda machine - not easily, anyway.

So the problem is much wider than FB.

<comment><USER5> > The problem isn't that FB is slanted, but that FB has a near-monopoly on > user attention, which allows its slant to be both covert and > disproportionately influential.

I couldn't agree more. They also have an unprecedented level of reach (billions of users) and user trust (appearance of community opinion vs. news media filtering).

> So the problem is much wider than FB.

Absolutely. Facebook is far from being the only offender here, and in a way, this is a growing pain of new technology. Just as we learned to not trust big media, we also will have to learn to approach social media with skepticism (despite it's inherently organic appearance).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Any news outlet or aggregator that's claims it is unbiased is probably lying. If there are humans involved there will be bias.

</comment><comment><USER75> So what.

The day Bill Clinton got elected, Rush Limbaugh started counting the days of "America Held Hostage".

Today Fox News leads every day with how there is a N _gg_ r in the White House and we all hate Obama and everything he stands for, and it is a tragedy we will get four years of Hillary because the Republicans are so screwed up, and...

Right wing "thinkers" get unlimited funding from the likes of the Koch Brothers and free copies of their books get mailed to all the public libraries in America. Even on "liberal" CNN they regularly have panels of "conservative thinkers", and the Economist features a "conservative thinker" who is a Senator from Nebraska.

When they bring a "liberal" on it is always somebody who works for a campaign or the Democratic party.

Conservatives get all the breaks but they are always bitching they aren't treated fairly. It worked for Nixon but hasn't worked for any Republican candidate ever since.

<comment><USER76> Part of what you said is hyperbolic or plainly not true, another part a false equivalence and, in both cases, it greatly misses the point.

To get two points right out of the way:

1\. I completely agree that the mainstream media in the U.S. (and in most parts of the world) is very biased and partisan.

2\. I also agree that, as private companies, both Facebook and the mainstream media are in their complete right to proceed with their business as they see fit, within the legality of it anyway. I don't believe whatever it is that they do is a First Amendment (the rule forbidding the government from suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, etc) matter although it can be a freedom of speech (the natural right) matter.

With that out of the way the main reasoning of this post.

The great promise of the Internet in general and social media in particular is that, maybe for the first time in history, the natural rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly come together in this amazing technological manner and, at least in principle, without the need for authorization and without the interference of powerful third parties like the government or the elite.

People can exchange thoughts and ideas, coordinate, and interact instantaneously all across the globe without the need of long travel or intermediaries relaying those messages.

There was even an implicit promise, an unrealized one when, in many of the big public manifestations of the beginning of this decade the so called "Social Media Revolution" helped to magnify the voice of the people in the streets, to help them to coordinate outside the graps of their governments (that usually have full control of both the media and the old means of communication like landlines and mobile phones).

And these new companies (like FB, Twitter, Reddit to name a few) capitalized on that claim too, posting themselves as bastions of freedom of speech, the tools for people to change the world, one hashtag at a time.

Now, the damnedest thing: with each revelation like this one it becomes apparent that "the king is dead, long live the king".

These companies, far from providing the means for people to communicate, to freely exchange thoughts and ideas, they try to shape and mold these ideas just like the very tools the government and the oligarchy uses to control the people.

If it is real that Facebook does that (and there is no reason to doubt) that betrays the people a lot more than the examples you mention. I believe people, after all these centuries since the printing _press_ (now synonymous with journalism) are used to the idea that it is biased, partisan and, in general unreliable.

But when it is their very words and thoughts that are being distorted, the ones from their friends, their neighbors, whose opinions and ideas can be amplified or muted at will depending on whether they conform or not to the gateway controllers agenda, that in my opinion is the ultimate betrayal by those companies.

Assuming this and many other suspicious about their behavior is true Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the social media in general is betraying the people a lot worse than the mainstream media are.

[1] The Social Media Revolution: Exploring the Impact on Journalism and News Media Organizations [2010]: [http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the- social-media-re...](http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/202/the-social-media- revolution-exploring-the-impact-on-journalism-and-news-media-organizations)

[2] If You Doubt That Social Media Has Changed The World, Take A Look At Ukraine [2014]: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you- dou...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/01/18/if-you-doubt-that- social-media-has-changed-the-world-take-a-look-at-ukraine/)

[3] Welcome to the social media revolution [2012]: [http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18013662)

<comment><USER75> The issue is that the right wing machine has gone so far that it has destroyed the Republican party. There won't be a Republican party in 2022 unless they get a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizen's United.

<comment><USER77> I am pretty doubtful of your statement as conservative media does a pretty good job of making people believe what the republical party wants them to believe.

<comment><USER75> That's exactly what it did. It got them to support Trump. For a long time the party has had a fortunate synergy of "red meat" issues that constituents care about and business interests who for some reason think that Hillary Clinton hates Goldman Sachs (but pays her $8000 a minute to hear what she has to say.) Note how "pro business" republicans will pay lip service to the Teslas and Ubers of the world until the local car dealers and taxi medallion owners want to stop them.

So much money gets thrown at anybody who passes the "litmus tests" that the the Republican party has a field of 17 losers who all looked alike and they were bowled over effortlessly by someone who could pick and choose from the litmus test issues to make a message that actually sells.

If there was not so much money for conservative candidates there might have been fewer candidates and it would have been easier for somebody serious to get some traction. Look at how $100 million got spent on those stupid "Ted Cruz is a flip flopper, you always know where Jeb stands, he stands in the same place as Rhett Butler, Han Solo, and Hillary Clinton..." ads -- in the Citizens United age, spending huge amounts of $$ just makes you look like a jackass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Quite interesting that two highly-active posts on this topic have been very rapidly removed from the frontpage.

Clearly something the community would like to discuss; clearly something HN doesn't want discussed.

<comment><USER79> Remember HN has flame detection software, so highly commented stories can sometimes be driven down quickly. I guess you could email the mods if you really see something amiss. But to give them more work, but at least dang seems to be a very kind person and takes HN seriously.

HN even has show dead, so even off topic or blatantly inflammatory/rude/racist/etc comments can still be seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Facebook's trending news algorithm is just Soylent Green, after all?

</comment><comment><USER81> Yes they are a private publicly traded company and they are within the law to manipulate news or whatever they want with their platform in most places at this time. However, if they were to become a clearinghouse for information I would think eyes of scrutiny would descend and look at how they attempt to manipulate news and opinion.

It's not clear who (in the hierarchy) is behind the decision to shape the news nor is it clear why they would mainly suppress conservative stories over liberal stories. Are liberal sources less prone to exaggeration? Or would they simply upset their audience less?

Interesting never the less. And certainly this could have serious repercussions on how news is consumed and perceived.

<comment><USER82> Well when your company leadership proclaims how they lean it certainly lends direction to those who work there. As for why would the suppress, those in power will tend to use it and many will justify it as fixing the system after all they are the smartest people they know so how could they be wrong?

Really the media has been slanted off and on for some time and most techies are very one sided if not blinded by altruistic claims that can never be delivered. Its the only song and dance of "its for the children" \- who is going to say they don't like children

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Perhaps Facebook was suppressing "news" items contradicted by empirical reality, and this policy disproportionately affected conservative positions.

<comment><USER45> Or perhaps perception of "empirical reality" is shaped by existing biases, causing them to be denied outright, resulting in an echo chamber that disproportionately affected conservative positions.

<comment><USER84> I like how there is an influx of new accounts that seem to be commenting on this article, but no where else.

Most of the publications that were being "suppressed" are tabloid-esque in manner. The fact that they are all conservative seems to be a problem conservatives may want to fix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659676](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11659676)

</comment><comment><USER26> NEWS sites that filter out news to meet its own agendas? Expected.

But let's stay focused on the topic, Facebook.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. Users don't perceive Facebook as a news site. They perceive it as a representation of their community, and as such, it is immensely more influential. That's why this is dangerous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Interesting, just last week my friend and I were debating how much Google and Facebook can influence an election.

We agreed it would be catastrophic if either decided to lean one way or the other...

Facebook is essentially suppressing free speech. Although, it has somewhat a right to do what it wants, it is skewing what other people share with one another (which is a big deal)

<comment><USER51> How is it suppressing free speech?

It's not keeping you from posting ridiculous pro-Trump tirades. It's not even hiding those tirades from your friends.

All it's doing is choosing not to shine a spotlight on conservative stories which aren't corroborated by mainstream sources.

<comment><USER86> > conservative stories which aren't corroborated by mainstream sources.

Conservativism _is_ mainstream. Part of the problem is that many people who are not conservative have been lead to believe that it is a marginal/extreme ideology. It is not. It may be a majority ideology, but it is at a bare minimum a the second most common.

For what it's worth I don't consider myself a conservative.

<comment><USER85> Last I checked (can't find the stats on mobile), conservatives represented 65+% of the vote in the U.S. However, they are significantly less likely to vote, many living in a rural area.

<comment><USER41> > Last I checked (can't find the stats on mobile), conservatives represented > 65+% of the vote in the U.S.

That's basically never been even _close_ to the case. Polling from earlier this year had a 37%/35%/24% conservative/moderate/liberal split [1], with "conservative" having a high since 1992 of 40%.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang- ideolog...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology- lead-thread.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is obviously very bad from the standpoint that the trending news section is ostensibly supposed to be organic, based on user behavior, and free of bias—except that which is inherent in the users themselves sharing things to be picked up as "trending". It appears that "trending news" has really been "curated news". Not cool at all.

More concerning than trending news actually being curated news is learning that negative stories about Facebook were allegedly actively suppressed. Doublenotcool at all.

However, that there is "conservative news" and "liberal news" is even more bothersome. Especially that it's offered as something anyone should find to be acceptable as an idea at all.

> _But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet > that wasn't as biased._

This is delivered as if it is inherently a bad thing, when it most assuredly is not. When I come across a story about anything, I actively prefer to find it covered by a neutral outlet that isn't as biased. This is, to me, a good thing, and what news _should be_. News should be _information about events_. If I want opinionated and editorialized news, I'd go after an opinionated and editorialized source. They abound. That anyone who calls themselves a journalist would call out the suppression of "conservative news" or "liberal news", instead of calling out the elevation and coupling of inherent bias in reporting as the problem itself, strikes me as more than worrisome.

To my thinking, there is a difference between news that is of interest to [insert ideological group identification] and news that is delivered through the bias of [insert ideological group identification]. I would love it if there was a way to identify and filter news from a neutral outlet with less (ideally no) bias. I recognize that is largely impossible, as we cannot rid ourselves of our biases very easily. However, we can _recognize_ our biases and seek to counterbalance them. We can also make attempts to actively omit them from news coverage. An outlet can report on facts.

That said, it appears this story highlights _both_ : a biased suppression of news that is of interest to conservatives and news that is delivered through the lens of conservatively biased opinion and sources. The former is entirely bad, as it actively omits information that a group would like to know. The second is far less onerous to me, as I personally would love it if there were algorithmic delivery of actual news from outlets that eschewed biased delivery and editorializing.

Edit: It is made clear in the article that part of the problem stems from Facebook's desire to compete with Twitter for real-time trending news. This is unsurprising, as should the outcome be to readers and users. Facebook created a tool to allow humans to modify news in the trending section that wasn't organically trending. Someone thought this would be a competitive net positive because it could allow Facebook curators to keep up with breaking news that was "all over Twitter". That Facebook hired _curators_ , and that one or more of those curators then divulged information about this tool being used to subjectively inject or suppress stories seems entirely unsurprising. The tool obviously should not exist. Creating it was a very dumb move. Not militantly monitoring and correcting its misuse was even dumber.

<comment><USER87> Of course there is "conservative news" and "liberal news". Liberal news is things that happened, things that will happen, etc. Conservative news is a made up stories, things that never happened, etc.

Example of trending "conservative news": Obama bans the phrase "Merry Christmas". E.g. [http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/barack-obama- bans-...](http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/barack-obama-bans-entire- military-from-saying-christmas)

<comment><USER88> I think that's an overly broad and biased characterization. I find it hard to believe that an entire half of the voting spectrum is made up of liars and charlatans.

<comment><USER87> But it should be pretty easy to believe that half of people (at least) are gullible. If "Obama bans Christmas" ends up as trending news because a couple hundred far-out whackjobs clicked on it, then your mom sees that in the trending box, and now your mom thinks that Obama banned Christmas.

<comment><USER18> This seems to be a far more damning indictment of trending news than curated news or the gullibility of people. Perhaps that is what you're getting at. I have this nagging suspicion that people catalog information based on the subjective believability of headlines without following through to the story, and only click on things because they either A) don't believe the headline, or B) find it enticing enough to want the juicy details.

"Obama bans 'Merry Christmas'" would likely get far more clicks and trend more than "Obama said Happy Holidays yesterday". To me, the problem is in the headline writing, coupled with silly human behaviors and algorithms. Not sure how to solve that problem.

I think Gizmodo's headline on this story is a compelling example of what I'm talking about. "Facebook has a tool used by curators to modify the Trending News section" probably wouldn't get as many clicks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> "Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn't as biased."

How awful.

<comment><USER90> I always do the same thing when I'm sending an article to someone who doesn't lean the same way politically, or when I (rarely) get preachy on my wall

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> This is routine on all media sites and social networks, nothing to see here.

Also way cheaper than funding a super pac am I right

<comment><USER92> Well, sort of. If you lean left-center, it's free. If you lean right-center, it's unavailable. Is this "cheaper"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Mmmm...yes....truly those backwards conservatives don't have any _real_ news.

/me swirls whiskey and tips fedora

Seriously, do you even recognize how condescending you sound?

<comment><USER83> Tax cuts raise revenue!

Saddam had WMDs and participated in 9/11!

Global climate change is a myth/conspiracy!

Obamacare will lead to high unemployment!

Allowing transgendered women into ladies' rooms leads to assaults on our wimminfolk!

The Earth is 6,020 years old and evolution is a Satanic lie!

If Facebook is keeping "news" sources with this kind of debunked, disproven, dishonest "facts" out of my news stream, then I'm going to start spending more time on Facebook.

<comment><USER45> Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video!

We're not spying on your emails!

I never sent classified information on that server!

Drone strikes only hit terrorists!

There are no secret "kill lists"!

With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors!

We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need!

The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi!

"If Facebook is keeping "news" like this, then I'm going to start spending more time on Facebook."

<comment><USER43> (Remember, the point was matching "empirical reality")

> Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video!

Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and government policy.

> We're not spying on your emails!

This one uses the NSA's word game where they claim it's only a "search" when a human looks at it. While I suspect many regular politicians (including Obama) don't fully understand the subject, this one should be counted as a lie.

> I never sent classified information on that server!

Hillary still might be indicted for that, though I suspect the "rich and powerful" will trump "rule of law" as usual. It might be useful to stop framing everything as conservative-vs-liberal, and realize that there are rich people everywhere on the political spectrum. Their most successful strategy was getting everyone else to fight between themselves.

As for empirical reality, I have no idea if it's true. If we're (very) lucky, the indictment will happen and the truth will be revealed in court.

> Drone strikes only hit terrorists!

I agree that this is a lie, but it's non-partisan. Drones strikes (and similar war crimes) started before Obama.

> There are no secret "kill lists"!

(same as above)

> With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors!

That's true. If you doctor or supplementary insurance decided to drop you instead of meeting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, that's between you and your doctor.

> We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need!

You plan to never use medical services?

> The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi!

I'll agree this one is a lie.

\--

To summarize, nothing is perfect, but conservatives have a much more serious problem with reality. Most politicians play political games and dissemble to get what they want, but it's disingenuous to claim both side are similarly wrong. Denial of our climate problems, creationist beliefs, and claiming revenue can be increase with tax cuts (the main source of revenue) are in contradiction with reality in fundamental - and easily observable - ways.

<comment><USER92> > Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and > government policy.

Mostly agree except for that poor video-creating dude who was thrown in jail for a year, plus or minus, as part of cover for a lie during campaign season. Right or left - you've gotta admit that kind of sucks.

<comment><USER43> I forgot about that part, which does suck. Consider my "meh" a statement about picking the right battle.

We can find abuses of power and corruption everywhere in government if we take the time to look for it, but some problems are larger and need immediate attention. As Londo Mollari said (B5 #3.11).

        Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir
        to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war
        on twelve fronts.

Once our climate problems, wealth gap, the growing police/surveillance state, and other large problems are stabilized there will be time for these more mundane problems in government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Just a rant because I'm sick of the hypocrisy and double standards being perpetrated by the media and ignoramuses and I guess Facebook too - <USER2> Lives matter is a racist, anarchist organization that engages in illegitimate and illegal protests, and whoever is funding them should be investigated and stand trial for supporting terrorist organizations.

<comment><USER7> Found the racist

<comment><USER93> Please don't react to a bad comment by making the thread worse.

<comment><USER7> I was joking

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> I fail to see an actual problem with this.

</comment><comment><USER95> Do you believe facebook does this? It's a Gawker article.

<comment><USER33> It's a Gizmodo article, unless I'm missing something.

<comment><USER95> Gizmodo is part of the Gawker empire. Their writers overlap and all push for click bait. I dislike their sites except for Deadspin because I don't mind reading trashy sports news.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> It seems the consensus in this thread is the justly moral superiority and the infallibility of the left over the always faulty right.

</comment><comment><USER70> FB must avoid the outward perception that its members are a collection of right-wing cranks. That perception would be bad for business.

</comment><comment><USER97> Is this even in the top fifty of shitty things facebook does? I ask that as someone who has visited the site four or five times in my life. Every time has confirmed how horrible it is. Every item about FB I see in the rest of the media is a complaint of some sort. What is going on?

</comment><comment><USER98> Since 99% of "conservative" news is manufactured by corporate America, then manipulated, packaged, (Often repackaged.) and presented by Faux News, I'm actually okay with this. It may be supporters of Drumph and company learn the hard way just how almost everything we enjoy as Americans is very much at jeopardy because of Corporate America pushing their agenda and only their agenda through their media outlets. In other words, enjoy your market and real news manipulations. Drumph supporters if successful will earn it!

<comment><USER99> You couldn't be more wrong. If you actually cared and didn't choose your political view based on what'll look the best in a hashtag under your selfie, you'd quickly find out that ALL liberal politics are sponsored by multinational global corporations. Modern day conservatives are all about small business, small government and financial freedom.

<comment><USER84> You people have lost the plot, truly.</comment></comment></comment>


Hypothesis: PMS is due to cyclic immunosuppression, treatable with antibiotics - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2010/04/the_uncertain_etiology_of_pms.php

<comment><USER2> Great: another potential source of antibiotics overuse.</comment>


ECMAScript 2017 Language Specification - <AUTHOR> https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm <comment><USER2> Proposals [0] that made it into ES8 ("what's new"):

* Object.values/Object.entries - [https://github.com/tc39/proposal-object-values-entries](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-object-values-entries)

* String padding - [https://github.com/tc39/proposal-string-pad-start-end](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-string-pad-start-end)

* Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors - [https://github.com/ljharb/proposal-object-getownpropertydesc...](https://github.com/ljharb/proposal-object-getownpropertydescriptors)

* Trailing commas - [https://github.com/tc39/proposal-trailing-function-commas](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-trailing-function-commas)

* Async functions - [https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript-asyncawait](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript-asyncawait)

* Shared memory and atomics - [https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_sharedmem](https://github.com/tc39/ecmascript_sharedmem)

The first five have been available via Babel and/or polyfills for ~18 months or so, so they've been used for a while now.

[0] [https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished- propo...](https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished-proposals.md)

<comment><USER3> I love the trailing commas for function calls. Wish we could get trailing commas for all of JSON too!

<comment><USER4> What I want are leading commas. Much tidier and one small thing you wouldn't have to edit/think about when adding and removing list items.

<comment><USER5> Unless you need to add something to the beginning.

<comment><USER4> I prefer comma first notation.

        const hello = {
        , 'one'
        , 'two'
        , 'three
        }

would be easier to visually parse than:

        const hello = {
          'one',
          'two',
          'three',
        }

Since the commas actually work as a guide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is mostly symbolic. The annual ECMAScript 'editions' aren't very significant now except as a talking point.

What matters is the ongoing standardisation process. New JS features are proposed, then graduate through four stages. Once at stage four, they are "done" and guaranteed to be in the next annual ES edition write-up. Engines can confidently implement features as soon as they hit stage 4, which can happen at any time of year.

For example, async functions _just_ missed the ES2016 boat. They reached stage 4 last July [1]. So they're officially part of ES2017 – but they've been "done" for almost a year, and landed in Chrome and Node stable quite a while ago.

[1] [https://ecmascript-daily.github.io/2016/07/29/move-async- fun...](https://ecmascript-daily.github.io/2016/07/29/move-async-functions-to- stage-4-per-july-2016-tc39-meeting-tc39-proposals-e8c0354)

<comment><USER7> I don't understand who gets to use these things. We have to support back to IE11 so other than some things we've managed to find effective polyfills for, we basically just threw our hands up and code as if it's 2012.

<comment><USER8> Most modern projects should probably use Babel and a bundler like Webpack for web targets. You may even want to separate legacy and modern browsers into separate targets so the 80-90% of users on evergreen browsers get a smaller download.

<comment><USER7> Yea, we probably should. Too many feature requests, not enough time to let us clear out the technical debt and make our stack nice and modern :(

<comment><USER9> I'm only two years into my current project and already am feeling this bite :-\

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would really love to see an object map function. I know it is easy to implement, but since they seem to be gaining ranks through syntax sugar, why not just have a obj.map( (prop, value) => ... ) ? :)

<comment><USER2> Is Object.entries(obj).map((prop, value) => ...) close enough? Object.entries is newly standard in ES8.

<comment><USER10> Not really object map. Does not return a new object ;)

<comment><USER2> Ah, well this would return a new object:

        Object.entries(obj).map((prop, value) => ...).reduce((newOdj, [prop, value]) => newObj[prop] = value);

I see your point about verbosity :)

<comment><USER11> Shouldn't it be ".map(([prop, value]) => ...)" ?

I like to write it this way, using as much syntax sugar as possible:

const mapObject = fn => obj => Object.assign( ...Object.entries(obj).map( ([key, value]) => ({ [key]: fn(value) }) ) );

<comment><USER7> >using as much syntax sugar as possible

It's not possible to say this on the internet without being rude so, apologies, but, why code like that? It genuinely was a struggle to parse (in my brain) your oneliner of code there. If I found this in our code base it would be a huge waste of time and energy.

<comment><USER11> No offense taken.

I said I _like_ to write it this way, not that I always do it.

> why code like that

It's a fun exercise.

> it would be a huge waste of time and energy

I don't fully agree on this: from the name and signature it's pretty clear what the function does, so you don't need to waste time "parsing" the details. And with unit tests it is also very low-risk.

But that's speculative, in a real project I'd just use lodash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Notably, with shared memory and atomics, pthreads support is on the horizon.

[https://kripken.github.io/emscripten- site/docs/porting/pthre...](https://kripken.github.io/emscripten- site/docs/porting/pthreads.html#running-code-and-tests)

Granted it may be limited to consumption via Emscripten, it is nevertheless now within the realm of possibility.

For this that cannot grok the gravity of this -- proper concurrent/parallel execution just got a lot closer for those targeting the browser.

<comment><USER13> Are locks and mutable shared memory a good thing? Advances in modern programming languages aim to abstract threads away (e.g. .NET's Task Parallel Library), because mutable memory shared between threads is a minefield (atomic, locks, mutexes, compare-exchange, etc.).

Not only are these difficult to reason about and program against, introducing locks over mutable memory causes performance problems and are a speed bump to high concurrency. (Heck, just yesterday on HN, a story was published "24-core CPU and I can't move my mouse" [0] - the culprit? Low-level locks.)

Creating too many threads introduces performance problems, too, thanks to CPU context switching; pools must be created and threads reused from those pools.

And now in JS land we're trying to _introduce_ threads and mutable shared memory? Are we just going to learn these lessons over again?

[0]: [https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/24-core-cpu- and...](https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/24-core-cpu-and-i-cant- move-my-mouse/)

<comment><USER14> You can only send strings to webworkers in javascript. Without shared memory you have to send a serialised copy of your data to the other process which then has to deserialise it. In most cases this is perfectly fine. But if you have a lot of data then moving it around might take more time than the computation itself. In this case you're forced to use shared memory.

<comment><USER15> Not true, you can send ArrayBuffers to webworkers as transferable objects without copying: [https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2011/12/Transferab...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2011/12/Transferable- Objects-Lightning-Fast)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What I wish ECMAScript had was true support for number types other than the default 32-bit float. I can use 32 and 64 bit integers using "asm.js", but this introduces other complications of its own -- basically, having to program in a much lower level language.

It would be nice if EcmaScript could give us a middle ground -- ability to use 32/64 bit integers without having to go all the way down to asm.js or wasm.

<comment><USER17> There's a BigInt proposal at stage 2, which might meet some of your needs: [https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bigint](https://github.com/tc39/proposal- bigint)

<comment><USER18> It's parseable in Babel 7, issue to implement the transform is [https://github.com/babel/proposals/issues/2](https://github.com/babel/proposals/issues/2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In the last couple of years we've seen a small number of significant improvements like async/await but mostly small tepid improvements like string padding, array.map(), etc. It's like TC39 are simply polishing JS.

I'd like to see TC39 tackling the big problems of JS like the lack of static type checking. I'm tired of looking at a method and having to figure out if it is expecting a string, or an object.

We had EcmaScript4 about 10 years ago with plenty of great features but TC39 killed it. And yeah, it probably made sense since the browser vendor landscape was very different back then. Today it would be possible to implement significant changes to the language much like the WebAssembly initiative.

<comment><USER20> The reason ES4 was killed was that there was no consensus between the stakeholders. It would have been a breaking change, making conforming engines incompatible with all existing JavaScript code.

How well major breaking changes like that work out on the web can be seen by the massive success ( _cough_ ) of XHTML -- I dare you find me one notable site correctly using XHTML with the appropriate MIME type (rather than just sending XHTML as HTML tagsoup using `text/html`).

Web Assembly works because it is not a breaking change to JavaScript. It's actually defined in a way that is mostly orthogonal to JavaScript -- it shares some of the APIs but most likely there will be (low-level) APIs only Web Assembly code can use and some (high-level) APIs that only exist for JS.

<comment><USER19> I'm not advocating for breaking changes, in fact static type checking in ES4 was optional, the language remained just as dynamic if you wanted to use it that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> pi-rat Really hate the naming for JS standards.. ES2017, ES8, ECMA-262. Way to confuse people :/

<comment><USER21> "The versions of Unix are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 6PWB, 7, 4.1, III, 4.3, V, and V.3." \-- quoted from memory from _The Unix-Haters Handbook_

So you see, they're following long-standing industry practice :-)

<comment><USER7> Angular 1, angular 2, angular 2.1... Angular (note, Angular 2 is now Angular! And so is every version after this! Angular 1 still exists though).

Surface Pro. Surface Pro 2 (note: Surface Pro is now surface pro 1!), Surface Pro 3, Surface Pro 4, Surface Pro. By the way we also have Surfaces (1, 2, and 3?) as well as Surface Books, and Surface Laptops! :D

Android: here's a bunch of fucking candy

OS: here's a bunch of fucking animals. By the way, sometimes people call your macbooks 10,1 or some shit.

<comment><USER22> > Android: here's a bunch of fucking candy

whose initials follow alphabetical order

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can anyone recommend a good book or guide for someone who knows pre-ES6 javascript but wants to learn all the latest ES6+ features in depth?

<comment><USER24> I found it helpful to go through the airbnb style guide. They have lots of examples of the "bad" (often old) way to write something, along with the "good" (often new) way. Then I updated one of my projects to follow those guidelines.

<comment><USER25> linkies

[https://github.com/airbnb/javascript](https://github.com/airbnb/javascript)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9822975](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9822975)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Here's what's in it: [https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished- propo...](https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished-proposals.md)

And some interesting tweets by Kent C. Dodds: [https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/880121426824630273](https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/880121426824630273)

Edit: fixed KCD's name. Edit #2: No, really.

<comment><USER27> If you're a Brit, this is a funny misspelling of Kent's name.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Dodd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Dodd)

<comment><USER26> Whoops, that's absolutely why I misspelled it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Regardless of what gets included in the spec, I hope people think critically about what to use and what not to use before they jump in. Just because something is shiny and new in JS, it doesn't mean you have to use it or that it's some sort of "best practice."

</comment><comment><USER29> For anyone wondering what's NodeJS support of ES8.

Everything is supported, except "Shared memory and atomics"

[1] [http://node.green](http://node.green)

<comment><USER30> Shared memory? Is that also maybe going to be implemented on chrome? I would not have expected shared with code running on the web/in a browser. I'm confused about the goals of ECMA and how ECMA relates to JavaScript.

<comment><USER31> That's memory shared between the main thread and Web Worker threads. While it's exciting from an "easily implementing multi-threaded applications" point of view, given the nature of the objects, it doesn't actually allow sharing any data that couldn't be shared without the new spec.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is there a "What's new" section?

<comment><AUTHOR> The "finished" proposals have a good list:

[https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished- propo...](https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished-proposals.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've been looking at the stage 2 and 3 proposals. I have a difficult time finding use for any of them except for Object spread/rest. The stage 4 template string proposal allowing invalid \u and \x sequences seems like a really bad idea to me that would inadvertently introduce programmer errors. I do hope the ECMAScript standardization folks will raise the barrier to entry for many of these questionable new features that create a maintenance burden for browsers and ES tooling and a cognitive burden on programmers. It was possible to understand 100% of ES5. I can't say the same thing for its successors. I think there should be a freeze on new features until all the browser vendors fully implement ES6 import and export.

</comment><comment><USER34> Has there been any progress on supporting 64-bit integers?

<comment><USER35> The BigInt proposal[0] is stage 2, meaning we should see some implementations soon.

[0]: [https://github.com/tc39/proposal- bigint](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bigint)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wish this-binding sugar would get promoted into stage 1.

<comment><USER37> The :: syntax is one of my favorite proposals - does anyone know what's holding it up?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I should really learn ES6

<comment><USER39> Literally after seeing this on #1 felt like, "Wtf? I just started learning ES6"

<comment><USER40> The additions in ES2016 and 2017 are minimal compared to the massive changes ES2015 (aka "ES6") introduced. Check the full list of them here: [https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished- propo...](https://github.com/tc39/proposals/blob/master/finished-proposals.md)

<comment><USER39> Yes, I have been through the proposals. Love these new changes. Psychologically it still felt daunting when I first saw it! :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Looks like ECMA's site is overloaded. Here's a Wayback Machine link for the lazy: [https://web.archive.org/web/20170711055957/https://www.ecma-...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170711055957/https://www.ecma- international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm)

<comment><USER42> If you're using Chrome, you can also go to cache://www.ecma- international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm (replacing [https://](https://) with cache://)

<comment><USER37> That's just doing a google search, so you could do "cache:{URL}" in firefox's search field too

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'd like to be able to capture object modifications like Python's magic __getattr__ __setattr__ __delattr__ and calling methods that do not exist on objects. In the meantime I am writing a get, set, delete method on my object and using those instead

<comment><USER44> theres defineproperty in es5. ive used it to create a orm where foo.bar = 1 executes async sql: update foo set x=1

<comment><USER43> That sounds pretty cool. Are there any public examples that I can learn from? Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Really interesting how bad the only JavaScript code used on their own site is: [https://www.ecma-international.org/js/loadImg.js](https://www.ecma- international.org/js/loadImg.js)

<comment><USER46> Do what I say, not what I do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I made a short sum-up of changes in this specification here: [http://espadrine.github.io/New-In-A- Spec/es2017/](http://espadrine.github.io/New-In-A-Spec/es2017/)

</comment><comment><USER48> What is up with decorators?

<comment><USER49> It's now at stage-2

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> >AWB: Alternatively we could add this to a standard Dict module.

>BT: Assuming we get standard modules?

>AWB: We'll get them.

lol

</comment><comment><USER50> > Kindly note that the normative copy is the HTML version;

Am I the only one who finds this ironic..

<comment><USER51> What's ironic about it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Wait, so async generators and web streams are 2018 or 2016?

</comment><comment><USER53> Time to update [https://es6cheatsheet.com](https://es6cheatsheet.com)

What's the feature you're most excited about?

<comment><USER54> Definitely async functions. JavaScript code will be _so much cleaner_ thanks to them. Can't wait for the much needed improvement in readability.

<comment> iso-8859-1 You don't have to wait, it is already supported server-side and client-side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Heh, maybe JS becomes finally usable just before WebAssembly takes off, rendering it obsolete :-D

<comment><USER7> Wherein a Hackernews suggests an unknown, unpopular technology will replace a known, popular one in short order.

<comment><USER55> Come on, many people are looking down at JavaScript for a reason - if the new standard allows proper multithreading, it suddenly gets closer to "usable" language as defined by many. But if they had a choice of another language running on top of Web Assembly (or whatever you name the web's VM), I am not sure they would even consider learning JS despite it being finally on par with their favorite language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Nice 90s style website ECMA!

<comment><USER57> Its funny that ECMA website is not more modern. Maybe they are too busy with the spec to change it. Who knows?

<comment><USER7> It's a site read by a bunch of programmers. Why does it need to be pretty? We can read lightly styled text quite easily. It's how most engineers I know prefer their _technical documentation._</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Carolynn Levy of YC said Not paying Founders a salary is illegal, is it? - <AUTHOR> Carolynn Levy YC lawyer said Not paying Founders a salary is illegal, is it?
I was watching Y Combination lectures at Stanford University and on lecture 17 at 32m30s they started to say that not paying founders is illegal and that you have to pay at least minimum wages. Which goes against everything they have been saying before like don't raise money before you have MVP and/or traction and do a lean startup.
Please don't comment without watching the video from 32:30 to 40:10, unless it's a link where it was thoroughly discussed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHzvmyMJEK4&t=32m30s
I have to incorporate Now and start working with co-Founders and contractors and pay equity to them and assign IP and bind people with NDA, non-compete and IP assignment in relations to the company and raise some seed money. But YC term is still 4 month away.
BTW: We will be doing Dynamic Equity splitting similar to what is in "Slicing Pie" book by Mike Moyer.
So what is up with this "pay Founders a salary" ? Aren't all Founders that invest time into start-up are exempt from minimum wages even if they only have 1% and monetary compensation laws do not apply to them or do we need to sign special agreement between Founders to pledge that we are independent contractors and not employees of a company for the time being?
Which exact part of any law demands paying active Founders?
I will be very thankful if someone can explain this to me and everyone else, because people on the net have been asking this same question.
Max <comment><USER2> I'm going to comment even though I didn't watch the video, to point out an earlier discussion on HN at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7521979](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7521979) .

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just my experience, for every possible thing that you could do that could be related to accounting, you can find at least one accountant who will insist that it's illegal.

</comment><comment><USER4> You really need professional employment counsel to respond to this properly & IANAL but here goes...

"Not paying Founders is illegal, is it?" Most likely, yes.

"Which exact part of any law demands paying active Founders?" There is no "exact part of a law" that demands it. You don't just look it up. That's not how the law works. There is a whole host of federal and state minimum wage legislation as well as precedent case law that would come into play. You cannot point to an "exact part" that requires "active Founders" (a term that the law doesn't recognise) to be paid minimum wage. Dig through [1], [2] and do a precedent search on LexisNexis or Findlaw if you're really interested.

Look, paying minimum wage is a legal requirement in the US. There is a small set of exemptions that allow companies to pay below minimum wage. The executive exemption [3] is one such exemption. These exemptions usually come with tests that you have to satisfy in order to qualify for the exemption. For example, according to the DOL [3] there are 4 tests, ALL of which must be satisfied to qualify for the executive exemption:

1) salary based comp > $455/week 2) primary duty is management 3) directing work of >2 FTEs 4) hiring/firing authority

An "active founder" in your situation who is not responsible >2 FTE would fail this test & therefore fail this exemption. There are probably other exemptions you could look to use instead. Your founders might or might not qualify for those as well, depending on your exact situation. Not paying her/him might or might not therefore be illegal.

The main problem is that you're completely missing the point.

Firstly Carolynn's advice is largely talking to startups that are YC-funded (& beyond). Secondly her advice is a reflection of the consequences & the risks involved, not some legal sub-clause. Do you want to risk falling foul of state & federal minimum wage law? Do you want to fall foul of payroll taxes? The answer is no. You do not. In the event you and your founder fall out (as Carolynn goes on to discuss) your life will be so much worse. Delinquent employers, minimum wage abusers do not fare well in a judge & jury court let alone the court of public opinion.

This is a complete non-topic. You are focused on a technicality & some overblown/imagined idealogical conflict, when instead you should just take Carolynn's very good advice and pay yourselves minimum wage if you can.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#History) [2]: [http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm](http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm) [3]: [http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17b_executi...](http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17b_executive.htm)

Again IANAL.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply.

"The main problem is that you're completely missing the point." Sorry, can you be a little less confrontational?

"This is a complete non-topic." "...pay yourselves minimum wage if you can." And if I can't pay myself and several more founders? Would that make it a "Yes, topic" ?

I don't trust just one person's proclamations, specially when it makes no sense and there is no explanation, just a directive.

What sense does it make for all Founders depositing into start-up their post tax saving just so that start-up pay them back those money minus second income tax, minus second FICA & Unemployment insurance deductions for next 6-12 month?

That doesn't make sense to me. Because that prevents almost all tech startups to legally exist.

Thanks again for your comment.

<comment><USER4> It's always hard to convey tone of voice well online. Sorry.

"And if I can't pay myself and several more founders? Would that make it a "Yes, topic" ?"

No, it's still a non-topic. If you can't pay your founders minimum wage you still have the same two choices: do a start-up or don't do a start-up. If you chose to do a start-up, know that you are taking on the additional risk that you might be breaking minimum wage laws and/or one of your founders can take you to court over it.

"What sense does it make for all Founders depositing...?"

The sense of it, is that it removes the risk of you breaking minimum wage law. That's ignoring all the positive social good of all those things. As NeutronBoy mentions you're literally describing how business works.

"that prevents almost all tech startups to legally exist"

No, it doesn't. I think your confusions stems from misunderstanding how law works & how law is enforced. Law is not proactive & the law is not binary. Minimum wage law cannot prevent "a start-up to legally exist". As Kirsty & Carolynn point out several times in that video your startup is a separate legal entity, one that exists from the point of incorporation. Assuming you've incorporated your start-up exists. Minimum wage law can't make it un-exist. A law or statute can't prevent it from existing. The clearest evidence for this is that thousands of start-ups do exist & that >0 them probably haven't paid minimum wage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I described how "some" businesses do it, most of them fail by 5 year mark or earlier and most of them don't give equity to early employees and don't have founders that work for equity, those are "some".

In contrast, most high tech or newer generation of self educated founders start without any money till there is an MVP and if some money are needed they are almost never allocated for complying with minimum wage laws to pay to equity earning founder, because in most businesses there is a more pressing need to pay for unavoidable things without which business wouldn't exist at all.

I perfectly know how law works, you just didn't picked-up on an emphasis of "legally" that was kind of obvious, meaning was "exist in legal compliance" I could have phrased it more accurately and you got me there, but it was more of an emotional typing than a prepared essay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think you're asking the right question, just the wrong way. Your question comes across (to me, and possibly others) as "prove to me that not paying myself a salary is illegal?", when I think your real question is "Does it make sense to do this, given the other competing demands on a founder's time?" My personal take is that if you're successful (let's use getting to your first actual cash compensation non-founder hire as a proxy for this), you can fix it at that time, if you don't make it that far, it's just as well you didn't waste time on it.

Besides, you probably commit "3 felonies per day", what's one more? :-) [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842) [http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent- ebo...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent- ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/)

The following section of Paul Graham's essay "Why startups condense in America", at [http://paulgraham.com/america.html](http://paulgraham.com/america.html) is relevant:

"7\. America Is Not Too Fussy.

If there are any laws regulating businesses, you can assume larval startups will break most of them, because they don't know what the laws are and don't have time to find out.

For example, many startups in America begin in places where it's not really legal to run a business. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Google were all run out of garages. Many more startups, including ours, were initially run out of apartments. If the laws against such things were actually enforced, most startups wouldn't happen.

That could be a problem in fussier countries. If Hewlett and Packard tried running an electronics company out of their garage in Switzerland, the old lady next door would report them to the municipal authorities.

But the worst problem in other countries is probably the effort required just to start a company. A friend of mine started a company in Germany in the early 90s, and was shocked to discover, among many other regulations, that you needed $20,000 in capital to incorporate. That's one reason I'm not typing this on an Apfel laptop. Jobs and Wozniak couldn't have come up with that kind of money in a company financed by selling a VW bus and an HP calculator. We couldn't have started Viaweb either.

Here's a tip for governments that want to encourage startups: read the stories of existing startups, and then try to simulate what would have happened in your country. When you hit something that would have killed Apple, prune it off.

Startups are marginal. They're started by the poor and the timid; they begin in marginal space and spare time; they're started by people who are supposed to be doing something else; and though businesses, their founders often know nothing about business. Young startups are fragile. A society that trims its margins sharply will kill them all."</comment>