It’s been only three days since Facebook News rolled out as a test to about 200,000 people in the U.S., meaning that only a tiny handful of Facebook users have seen it. (I had a brief moment of excitement this morning when I thought I was one of them, but it turns out my app actually just updated with Today In, Facebook’s less-new local news tab, which has its own problems.) Not having seen or used the new feature yet, however, is no reason for people not to hate it, and the complaints and concerns had time to marinate over the weekend.

The complaint topping the list is that Breitbart will be one of Facebook News’ “high-quality” news sources. Facebook has refused to provide a full list of the 200 news outlets it’s including in the launch of Facebook News (more on that below), but Bloomberg reported Friday that the alt-right site is one of them. On Friday, reporters began asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg why Breitbart was included in what he had described as “a space dedicated to high-quality and curated news.” From The Verge:

[When] New York Times reporter Marc Tracy asked how including Breitbart served that cause, Zuckerberg emphasized its politics, not its reporting. “Part of having this be a trusted source is that it needs to have a diversity of views in there, so I think you want to have content that represents different perspectives,” he said. Zuckerberg reiterated that these perspectives should comply with Facebook’s standards, and he was cagey about Breitbart’s presence, saying that “having someone be possible or eligible to show up” doesn’t guarantee frequent placement. “But I certainly think you want to include a breadth of content in there,” he said.

In a New York Times op-ed on Friday, Zuckerberg wrote, “We’re setting strict standards for publishers to be eligible to appear in Facebook News. If a publisher posts misinformation, it will no longer appear in the product.” (In the past, Breitbart has published published many stories that were proven false, run trolly headlines such as “Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy” and “Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?”, and nurtured ties to white nationalism.) Times Opinion writer Charlie Warzel wrote the same day:

The real threat to Facebook isn’t bad P.R., it’s alienating its user base.

Through this lens, it makes perfect sense that Facebook should want to publicly court conservative audiences that seethe at what they perceive as Facebook’s liberal bias. And while the outcomes of Facebook’s decisions have serious political consequences, Mr. Zuckerberg and his fellow decision makers at the company view their decision to choose both publishers and off-the-record dining partners in terms of user acquisition strategy. According to Bloomberg, publications for Facebook News were chosen after surveying users and studying news consumption habits on the platform. Breitbart’s inclusion suggests that it checked enough of Facebook’s boxes, despite its toxicity. The same goes for dinner with [Fox News’ Tucker] Carlson, who launders white nationalist talking points and speaks to a large audience on cable TV every weeknight. The pattern is clear: If an entity or individual achieves a certain level of scale and influence, then the company will engage earnestly.

It’s telling that Facebook would look to Mr. Carlson or Breitbart and interpret a large audience and influence as a stand-in for authority and credibility. What else should we really expect from a company that refuses to meaningfully distinguish those who share hyperpartisan vitriol from those joyfully sharing baby pictures? When scale is the prism through which you view the world, that world becomes flat. When everyone becomes a number, everyone starts to look the same.

Instagram’s Adam Mosseri, the former VP of Facebook’s News Feed, replied to Warzel’s story in a highly ratioed series of tweets.

Two things to consider: (1) do you really want platform as big as Facebook embracing a political ideology? And (2) not as important, and this is an honest question, why such a different reaction to Breitbart being Apple News partner?

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) October 26, 2019

It’s about what is considered news and the methods of professional news reporting, as opposed to diversity of opinions. There are many credible, professional conservative reporters and publications; plenty more non-partisan or liberal. Very few consider Breitbart as their peer.

— Ryan Heath (@PoliticoRyan) October 27, 2019

Facebook logic —

Including Breitbart: neutral, objective

Excluding Breitbart: political, an abuse of platform power https://t.co/yret4FRu4Y

— 🦇Becca Lew-witch🦇 (@beccalew) October 27, 2019

I’m honestly not trying to play a game. I don’t even want Breitbart to be part of Facebook News. I simply asked if it was more important to get your way than to be default open to speech? The stakes are so high it just might be, but I believe it’s worth asking the question.

— Adam Mosseri (@mosseri) October 28, 2019

Except… Facebook including Breitbart is almost certainly a political decision on FB’s part. And there are plenty of subscriber-based businesses that both-sides it.

— Peter Kafka (@pkafka) October 25, 2019

This is what happens when a platform is run by people who are truth-agnostic. I don't think anyone should want Facebook to promote/exclude outlets based on ideology. Rather, the argument is FB decisions should be made based on whether the publications are truthful and accurate. https://t.co/8Zk7pZnfxN

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 26, 2019

It's alarming that Facebook execs think the only issue is Breitbart's "ideology." Another issue would be the quality of stories it publishes. Using a website known for peddling misinformation as a source for a news tab aimed at curating "high quality" info makes little sense. https://t.co/VCllutIqsv

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 26, 2019

A Facebook spokesperson told CNBC that “Breitbart is not among the publishers the company will pay to host content in the Facebook News Tab. The spokesperson said Breitbart is ‘eligible to appear in the tab because their current content on Facebook meets the guidelines.'”

Where is the list, by the way? Facebook has refused to release a full list of the 200 publishers it’s including in the News tab at launch.

UPDATE: A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to me that the company is not releasing a list of publications that are approved for inclusion in the new News Tab

It’s hard to understand how this can be a trusted source of news if Facebook won’t be transparent about what’s included

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 25, 2019

my sense is that the list is in flux and they’re not ready to talk about it yet. but they should and I hope they do soon

— Casey Newton (@CaseyNewton) October 25, 2019

it might turn out to be a worse strategy for it to slowly leak over time just in terms of extending the outrage or whatever

— rat king (@MikeIsaac) October 25, 2019