Because combined with the abysmal state of education in most places, and a general lack of government action, Facebook is an actual threat to our civilization.
People unfortunately love the upsides of misinformation, or perhaps it's the format that makes it easy to build community around shared (misinformed) values, to rally in battles that rage for hours or days for a cause you deeply believe in and can follow by digesting 30-second soundbites on social midea and 30-minute videos on YouTube.
People will do this wherever they can talk in a group online, not just Facebook properties. It's... pretty bad actually, I think the only tool that exists right now is censorship, because the bullshit gets created, spread, and wholeheartedly received way faster than debunking will.
And censorship is a power that can't be safely entrusted to nobody.
I don't necessarily disagree, but often I hear FB or other tech companies like Twitter singled out re: misinformation. News media contributes to misinformation and contributes to a warped, partisan, permanently-in-catastrophe-mode population just as much as FB, Twitter, and other mediums.
I doubt, if FB goes away, that any of the issues you're implying will go away or even get much better. In fact, the lack of a real look into the negative effects of consumer news product reinforces this idea that only the elite can know the truth, and the masses just have to get in line and shut up.
News media proliferated nonsense from fed sources to justify the Iraq war, they gave Trump 24/7 airtime for a while because it increased ratings. They constantly forgo any real accountability for their actions, and pretend that they aren't just another addictive consumer product that warps peoples' brains.
> It's a parent's job to educate your children. There are much worse things than Facebook out there.
I'm guessing that either you're not a parent, or your kids aren't teens.
But most parents of teens realize that kids, and especially teens, are often much more influenced by things like social media & peers (and peers via social media) vs. influence their parents have on them.
It actively uses its algorithm to radicalize racists and conspiracy theorists, and when it discovered that's what it was doing decided to keep doing it because it was good for the bottom line:
An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
> An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
That's the whole point. Oh they're just trying to make a buck like everyone else is exactly the problem.
They are a running a paperclip maximizer that turns passive consumers of misinformation into "engaged" radicals and the system that is Facebook has no incentive to correct this.
To recap, you seem to be concerned that all social media are allowing posts to become popular, and those posts sometimes promote hatred towards conservatives or liberals.
Two questions:
- What do you think should be done about the legacy media that is doing the same?
- Should social media promote boring posts, or actively censor political content in favour of a certain viewpoint, or anything else? Perhaps a real-life name registration for anyone with over 1000 followers, like in China?
> those posts sometimes promote hatred towards conservatives or liberals.
Incorrect assertion. Those posts promote hatred and/or violence toward humans for traits those humans did not choose. e.g. race, sexual orientation, etc.
Legacy media aren't actively amplifying the voices and recruiting efforts of white supremacists.
Facebook is. They acknowledge that they are. They chose to actively allow and encourage it for profit.
