1. Define the following words as used in the commentary:

• unprecedented (paragraph 3)
• explicit (para. 4)
• unfiltered (para. 9)
• algorithm (para. 11)
• colluding (para. 16)

2. What is the main idea of this commentary?

3. For each of the following assertions made by Mr. Nunez, write agree or disagree and explain your answers:

1.  “Most people don’t see Facebook as a media company - an outlet designed to inform us. It doesn’t look like a newspaper, magazine, or news website. But if Facebook decides to tamper with its algorithm - altering what we see - it’s akin to an editor deciding what to run big with on the front page, or what to take a stand on. The difference is that readers of traditional media (including the web) can educate themselves about a media company’s political leanings. Media outlets often publish op-eds and editorials, and have a history of how they treat particular stories. Not to mention that Facebook has the potential to reach vastly, vastly more readers than any given publication.” (from para. 11)
2. “With Facebook, we don’t know what we’re not seeing. We don’t know what the bias is or how that might be affecting how we see the world.” (from para. 12)

3. Re-read paragraph 13-14. Does this information cause you to change your view of Facebook? Why or why not? Explain your answer.

4. Conservative-libertarian commentator A.P. wrote:

Facebook is a private company and can suppress whatever speech they like…. Nothing’s stopping them from saying “no Trump material on our site.” There would…be a market backlash among Trump fans if Facebook did something like that - unless they secretly censored all (or most) of the Trump material without telling anyone. Imagine if Facebook quietly instituted a policy in which users could post pro-Trump material but only, say, 20 percent or so of their actual postings would be visible to “friends.” You’d never know that your posts weren’t being viewed, and the fact that you yourself would be able to view “some” pro-Trump posts by other people would convince you that nothing untoward is afoot. As Gizmodo notes, they’ve gamed people’s feeds before to try to tweak election results. Their reach is so fantastically huge that they could, in theory, tilt an election in one or more swing states simply by encouraging particular demographics to vote.

What do you think of this idea? (It’s possible, no way Mark Zuckerberg would do such a thing, even if FB did this, it would not sway people’s opinions, etc.) Explain your answer.

5. Ask a parent to answer the questions. Discuss your answers.