Have you ever found yourself in a position where you weren’t quite sure what you were expected to do? Maybe found yourself having to do something that you didn’t have the training or the experience for? It happened to me a few years ago. I remember sitting in my office thinking to myself that I had no idea where to even begin.
I get the feeling that is exactly how some folks at Facebook are feeling right about now. The social media site began life as a clearing house for social interaction at Harvard finds itself in a peculiar position. A study by the Pew Foundation published earlier this year says that 44% of social media users get their news, in whole or in part, from Facebook. We’re not just talking about news about celebrities or the latest movie. People go to Facebook to find out what is happening in the world.
The problem is that Facebook isn’t set up to be a journalism source. It’s set up to share puppy videos and Joe Biden memes. Some people are very concerned about the impact that may have in our political conversations. When factual reporting is put side by side with complete fabrications, with now way to differentiate between the two, there is a potentially huge problem developing.
Facebook has stated repeatedly, as recently as this past week, that they believe the vast majority of their feed materials, Mark Zuckerburg set the figure at 99%, are factual. Reports from inside the Land of Zuckerberg indicate that not everyone there agrees. A group of employees is pressing the company to take more proactive actions to control blatantly false stories.
If you’re looking for an example of proactive action, take a look at Google. The search engine goliath has also absorbed some criticism about its part in spreading false information. They are moving to hit the fake news sites where it hurts, in the wallet.
They will do this by altering the guidelines for their AdSense advertising spots. In a statement, Google said that the rules would prohibit their use on websites that “misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose” of the site. So sites that clearly identify themselves as comedy or satire sites should not be affected.
As we get more and more of our information from “non-traditional” sources, it becomes important that those sources take their responsibilities seriously. The recently concluded political campaign saw immense amounts of what I’ve seen referred to as “fact light” stories out there, coming from and aiming at both ends of the political spectrum.
The information that we use as voters and citizens of the Republic is too vital to the ongoing health of our society to be treated with such disrespect.
Something has to be done.
Leave a comment