...and it sounds like they initially suppressed and injected a lot more stories, too, so it&#x27;s conceivable that this person was pissed off about these suppressions, but not about others that happened to agree with their own prejudices.<p>And then there&#x27;s the issue that&#x27;s these kind of algorithms need tuning - they&#x27;re not intrinsically neutral.  It&#x27;s unlikely that conservative and liberal social networks&#x2F;stories have the same kind of structures, and details of how the network is connected can influence what&#x27;s trending.  This makes the complaint a little absurd.<p>Not only are algorithmic results also biased, these manual corrections might conceivably be useful to <i>correct</i> that bias.<p>There&#x27;s this naive assumption that there exists the One True Fair and Neutral ranking algorithm that&#x27;s unbiased.  But the whole notion is ridiculous: we <i>want</i> that bias, because we <i>want</i> to discriminate in favor of &quot;trending&quot; content - and &quot;trending&quot; isn&#x27;t even rigorously defined.<p>And even if we had a rigorous definition, that doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;d be the most useful definition.  Elections have strictly defined protocols, yet that doesn&#x27;t mean an elected US president has the majority of votes.  And lest you believe majority voting is the answer, a majority elected president might nevertheless be inferior to a competitor by majority opinion (i.e. it&#x27;s not stable)... and of course regardless of election result there&#x27;s no guarantee that current opinions are a good predictor of future opinions let alone achieved results.<p>In short: not only is this just one person&#x27;s opinion, the standard they hold Facebook to (no bias) is impossibly high.<p>Perhaps there&#x27;s some amount of unwanted (by whom) bias, but dealing with that isn&#x27;t as black and white as the complainer suggests.