[bediger4000]

I'm going to have to disagree on the right-leaning bias. News organizations have more-or-less designated conservatives: Nicole D Wallace had that role at NBC, Jennifer Rubin at WaPo until recently, Marc A Thiessen now has that role. At least the Denver papers were the same until the Rocky Mountain News failed (I quit subscribing after that). Nobody cares, in fact, everybody likes it.

Also, I'm going to disagree in "cases like this". This particular case, autocomplete on "Clinton Body Count" is nothing more (if it even exists) than stopping auto-complete on a unproven, highly unlikely, conspiracy theory. You might as well bring up suppressing autocomplete on "Elders of Zion" or "illuminati world control".

[cheeky78]

Do you really not see the liberal bias with pretty much every single mainstream news organization in the US?

We are also no seeing a bias online because many sites will secretly shadow ban inconvenient comments that show disagreement with the current narrative...HN included.

[bediger4000]

Honestly, no I do not see a liberal bias. I do see a corporate bias: things like "can't raise taxes on corporations, they'll only pass it along to the consumer" get passed along without any question. "Can't raise taxes on the consumer, they'll only pass it along to their employers" - now that's considered laughable and weird.

I do see something akin to conservative bias. Conservative framing of every debatable issue occurs. Conservative writers get what amounts to affirmative action. By calling "liberal bias" on every report they don't like, Republicans have conditioned editors, reporters and fact checkers to merely repeat what Republicans say verbatim. No analysis, no context, no history. Democrats, on the other hand, what they say is totally up for shredding based on who, history and context.

I find the idea of "shadow bans" laughable. I get downvoted and argued with all the time. My opinions are not popular: you are arguing with me about something you take as gospel, and I think is totally false right now. I've never been "shadow banned". I know that HN does something like that, mostly for people who just disrupt conversations. But here's some news: getting argued with because your opinions are poorly formed, poorly stated or even false on the face of them is not bias, and downvotes are not shadow bans.

[bediger4000]

Here's an example: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/08/update-on-potential-ant...

Would Facebook take seriously an anti-liberal bias accusation? I don't think so. There's actually incentive for Facebook and other companies to "do something" about accusation of liberal bias, but very little to no incentive to take (currently non-existent) accusations of conservative-bias seriously.