> She argues that Facebook is allowing its self-interest to interfere with its responsibility to protect democracy, and that the public and regulators need to know what is happening to provide oversight.
Firstly, Facebook's a private business which means it will pursue profitable solutions ahead of their concerns about "democracy." As Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" to establish a moral framework before embarking on "Wealth of Nations", we can similarly see the ways that businesses will pursue profitable solutions based on the moral outlook they're working with. It's been pretty clear from the start that Facebook's business case is to monetize from the information users post online. Algorithms that maximize engagement (aka addiction) fall in line to the monetization strategy and moral attitude the company takes.
My final point is that a government's use of Facebook as a propaganda machine is a an age-old practice that shouldn't surprise any student from history (think of the kings who defaced and removed all records from their opponents). But he medium of communication is new, so they will take advantage of that. It will be Facebook's purview to decide whether they will continue these practices to continue, or take a different moral stance and become more "editorial" about their practices. Though on second thought, they have been this way for a long time with conservatives.
Back when radio became popular in the 20s and 30s, the new propaganda oppertunities helped Facsim to rise. Now we have a similar situation, only that social media is the new medium being used for propaganda. And as societies, we have yet to figure out how to manage that on scale. Beyond making mney (the platforms) or using it to manipulate opinion. Ultimately I think we will figure it ou, or get used to it. The path o that is what worries me sometimes, so.
Firstly, Facebook's a private business which means it will pursue profitable solutions ahead of their concerns about "democracy." As Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" to establish a moral framework before embarking on "Wealth of Nations", we can similarly see the ways that businesses will pursue profitable solutions based on the moral outlook they're working with. It's been pretty clear from the start that Facebook's business case is to monetize from the information users post online. Algorithms that maximize engagement (aka addiction) fall in line to the monetization strategy and moral attitude the company takes.
My final point is that a government's use of Facebook as a propaganda machine is a an age-old practice that shouldn't surprise any student from history (think of the kings who defaced and removed all records from their opponents). But he medium of communication is new, so they will take advantage of that. It will be Facebook's purview to decide whether they will continue these practices to continue, or take a different moral stance and become more "editorial" about their practices. Though on second thought, they have been this way for a long time with conservatives.