Social media in the fake news era

Over the past 18 months, fake news has been identified as the culprit behind increased political polarization, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the election of Donald Trump. It was named ‘Word of the Year’ by Collins Dictionary. And it's hard to discuss fake news without mentioning Facebook, the largest social media platform on the planet. With 45% of Americans receiving at least some news from Facebook, the platform is central to the dissemination and consumption of news in the United States.

But does Facebook have an ethical duty to respond to fake news on its platform? What ethical obligation does Facebook have to its users? To publishers and news media? To society at large? How the company responds to these questions will have profound implications for news, politics and governance. 

 Recent Events

Facebook’s exposure to scrutiny over fake news is due in large part to the perceived impact of fake news in the 2016 U.S. election. One analysis suggests that 20 of the most viral fake election stories received over 8.7 million engagements on Facebook, more than the 20 most-shared traditional news articles.

In November 2016, amidst increasing furor over election-related fake news, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that it is “a pretty crazy idea” that fake news on Facebook may have influenced the election. On January 6, 2017, the U.S. government released an intelligence assessment revealing that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.”

Facebook subsequently admitted that 126 million people in the U.S. might have been exposed to Russian-created fake news. On January 4, 2018, Mark Zuckerberg reaffirmed Facebook’s commitment to “defending against interference by nation states”. Since that time, Facebook has launched a “Journalism Project” to tackle misinformation, and partnered with independent fact-checkers to help flag false articles.

So was that enough?         

What is Facebook’s Ethical Duty?

Arguments that Facebook has a responsibility to confront fake news are plentiful. Let's lay out some of the most compelling ones.

The ‘Defense of Democracy’ argument

The first argument is that fake news presents a fundamental threat to democratic institutions. Peter Singer argues that fake news is “contrary to one of the fundamental premises on which democracy rests: that voters can make informed choices between contending candidates.”

But what duty does Facebook have to uphold democratic institutions? While one could argue that democracy is the most morally justifiable form of government, how far should this obligation extend?

Must Facebook act merely because failure to act might harm democracy? If so, where does the obligation end? I would argue that overheated rhetoric on cable news is damaging to our democratic institutions. Do CNN or Fox have an ethical obligation to prevent their guests from name-calling and fiery rhetoric? There is a certain irony in arguing that businesses must self-limit certain individual liberties (the freedom of speech, even if that speech is lies) in order to preserve those very freedoms. 

In addition, cracking down on fake news is unlikely to solve the underlying problem. When I worked in the Obama Administration, we worked tirelessly to explain our trade negotiations to the American public. We consistently confronted press that I would characterize as fake news.

However, the patently false stories were not the ones that were most poisonous to public discourse. The most divisive news pieces were politically tinged articles – rooted in fact, but extremely slanted. There is no easy solution to tackling this bias. It can’t be censored as fake news, but I would argue it is a far greater contributor to our political polarization. 

The ‘Protect the Press’ Assertion

A second argument is that fake news is hurting good journalism, and that Facebook has a responsibility to promote real journalism. This argument is linked to broader concerns about the ability of the news media to survive the digital age amid declining profits.

The argument is often that “having a larger number of good journalists is an indisputable goal for any functioning democracy” and by editing the content on its own platform, Facebook “will further the civic commons.”

This is an appealing argument. How difficult would it be for Facebook to hire editors to curate its ‘trending news’ section and ensure that blatantly false information doesn’t go viral? In some areas (e.g. combatting hate speech or ‘offensive content’), Facebook is already editorializing content.

As convincing as that solution may be, the core question is what ethical obligation does Facebook have to uphold good journalism? In today’s environment, Facebook is often described as being an existential threat to journalism. But in a compelling review of the history of U.S. journalism, Breese and Luengo argue that “across time periods, journalism is perceived to be at a precipice” and “the standards of good journalism persist along with concerns that they will fade away or vanish.”

Facebook certainly poses a challenge to which journalists will need to adapt. Ultimately, good journalism will not die, and we shouldn’t require Facebook to take action to stave off an exaggerated threat. 

The ‘Immoral Profits’ Assertion

Finally, perhaps the most compelling argument is that – in the words of entrepreneur Justin Kan – “it is unethical to profit off a platform that allows the widespread proliferation of lies.”

Facebook has tacitly acknowledge this, announcing that they “do not integrate or display ads in apps or sites containing content that is illegal, misleading or deceptive, which includes fake news.” There are some who argue more should be done: making more data public and creating blacklists of individuals or businesses who post fake news sources for profit.

But what exactly is Facebooks ethical obligation? 

 Most would agree that it is wrong to profit off lies. But Facebook is not lying. Is it unethical for Facebook – in its role as a platform – to derive a small portion of its profits from the lies of others? And why don’t we apply the same standard to Amazon for hosting fake content? Or to Bank of America for hosting bank accounts of purveyors of fake news?

Facebook is a convenient target because they are the medium through which this information is communicated; however, I don’t believe this transfers an ethical obligation to Facebook.  

Letting Facebook off the Hook?

 Those are a few lenses through which we can look at the moral imperative Facebook has (or doesn't have) to curb misinformation. But there are two primary reasons why I believe we should not overstate Facebooks ethical duty in this space. 

First, Facebook is the most powerful social network the world has ever seen. While some argue that “the United States has left the era when a few national news outlets could amass mammoth audiences,” Facebook now effectively has that power. As the LA Times Editorial Board argues, that power “is reason enough not to want them to become censors.” There are genuine risks to Facebook becoming the arbiter of what is real and what is fake. In this respect, I can see the consequentialist argument: the ends (preventing Facebook from amassing too much power) justify the means (allowing a certain amount of fake news on the platform).

Second, fake news is not a new problem, and we should not treat it as such. With the advent of the printing press, fake news spread rapidly. Fake news was such a problem in the early 20th century that one columnist concluded that “some day…the people of this country will demand as much protection against adulterated news as they now get against adulterated.”

After Orson Welles’ broadcast of War of the Worlds, “thousands of people across the country had taken the fake news to be true and fled their homes in terror.” Despite calls for government censorship, the radio was not banned.

History is littered with examples of concern about fake news, and calls to regulate the medium through which such misinformation is transferred. In ‘Writing on the Wall’, Tom Standage highlights the reaction of Socrates to the spread of the written word. Socrates argued that “people who rely on written documents…will be ‘hearers of many things and will have learned nothing’” and argued that written texts are “subject to misunderstanding or distortion.”

If even the written word was once blamed for distortion of fact, then Facebook is certainly not safe from criticism. But it’s worth considering whether our fears about Facebook are merely knee-jerk reactions to a new – and inevitable – technology upsetting the status quo.

Nice ethics, so what's actually going to happen?

 Although I'm not convinced Facebook has an ethical obligation to address fake news, I am confident that they will, for a simple reason: their bottom line. 

Facebook’s dogmatic insistence that it serves as a platform not a publisher could be its downfall. In maintaining neutrality, it opens itself up to bad actors, notably fake news. An open platform is like a physical marketplace: if the supply of fake merchandise rises enough that people question the quality of all merchandise, the marketplace loses customers. If Facebook fails to respond to fake news on its site, users will eventually hold the company accountable.

 Facebook’s founding mission was to “make the world more open and connected.” They have undoubtedly succeeded in create what Niall Fergusson describes as the “the largest ever social network.”

Ultimately, the reason we see fake news monetized alongside baby pictures is because Facebook created an algorithm and a user interface; it didn’t change human nature. Nor should we expect it to. Facebook cannot save us from the foibles of human nature. “It is only logic and critical thinking which could save us from the trap of manipulation.” 

In a world totally transformed by the internet and frictionless communication between 8 billion people, there are no easy answers.