I'm really torn on this issue. On one hand does Facebook have to double check every ad that comes through and make sure that it is factually accurate? On the other hand, Facebook is incredibly influential platform and I don't want anyone buying this election by giving Facebook money to spread blatant lies. I know we like to pretend that we are all rational machines that can take the time and do the research and be skeptical, but no one is ever that machine all that time. If you buy enough ads and say enough lies people will fall for them.
This is how it should work, and has worked for decades, centuries even. Unfortunately more and more companies (with an emphasis on those based in Silicon Valley) feel the need to coddle users, as if they're too stupid to decide for themselves what information to believe, or even breaking down matters of opinion into the "right" opinion and the "wrong" opinion.
Make a fact checking company. Let the burden of attracting users fall on that company alone. Let them compete for ad space among users. Push the responsibility of providing an accurate and unbiased service onto them. Let them fail and go bankrupt if no one wants to use those services
In short, stop hiding behind the veil of keeping people "informed". People are as informed as they want to be, and if you truly feel people desire to know facts versus lies, make a company and compete in the free market like everyone else who has an idea to sell.
I think the problem here is ideological equality being corrupted by economic inequality.
The problem is no different from the issue we see in mainstream media. When our information flow is dominated by for-profit institutions, the information is biased towards profitable agendas. See: Tesla coverage bias, Cambridge Analytica, political debates favoring incendiary soundbytes because intellectual discourse isn't profitable, etc.
In Mark's shoes, I'd publicly acknowledge the importance of democratic information flow, ideological equality, etc and implement restrictions on the reach of any individual organization (or even ideology). I don't care if you have $1B to spend; you can only ever push your agenda to 1% of our audience at the same time. It's the ideological equivalent of an income cap.
But of course, Facebook, Inc. is incentivized to reframe the issue of "avoiding responsibility" in terms of "avoiding censorship" because avoiding responsibility is more profitable. Why not compare what they're doing to an oppressive dictatorship to really drive the angelic behavior home, while we're at it.
How is it possible to uphold freedom of speech when you allow someone to purchase my effective silence?
Obviously this would be challenging ~ how do you categorize ideology? ~ but I think at least starting to think about ideological equality in digital spaces is a worthy target of our cognitive and economic investment.
3 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 39.4 ms ] threadMake a fact checking company. Let the burden of attracting users fall on that company alone. Let them compete for ad space among users. Push the responsibility of providing an accurate and unbiased service onto them. Let them fail and go bankrupt if no one wants to use those services
In short, stop hiding behind the veil of keeping people "informed". People are as informed as they want to be, and if you truly feel people desire to know facts versus lies, make a company and compete in the free market like everyone else who has an idea to sell.
The problem is no different from the issue we see in mainstream media. When our information flow is dominated by for-profit institutions, the information is biased towards profitable agendas. See: Tesla coverage bias, Cambridge Analytica, political debates favoring incendiary soundbytes because intellectual discourse isn't profitable, etc.
In Mark's shoes, I'd publicly acknowledge the importance of democratic information flow, ideological equality, etc and implement restrictions on the reach of any individual organization (or even ideology). I don't care if you have $1B to spend; you can only ever push your agenda to 1% of our audience at the same time. It's the ideological equivalent of an income cap.
But of course, Facebook, Inc. is incentivized to reframe the issue of "avoiding responsibility" in terms of "avoiding censorship" because avoiding responsibility is more profitable. Why not compare what they're doing to an oppressive dictatorship to really drive the angelic behavior home, while we're at it.
How is it possible to uphold freedom of speech when you allow someone to purchase my effective silence?
Obviously this would be challenging ~ how do you categorize ideology? ~ but I think at least starting to think about ideological equality in digital spaces is a worthy target of our cognitive and economic investment.