Laura Sherman
Dr. Foster and Dyer
LAR211
11/30/18
Facebook’s News Injustice
Facebook is an institution that controls news media on it’s platform and has abused this control. As the board members of Facebook, it is your job to recognize the misuse of power your company is exercising. The algorithm behind what news articles are included in a users’ newsfeed is highly problematic. Fake news is scattered throughout the platform and money from Facebook is motivating that. Facebook needs to reform the news aspect of its social media platform.
As the leaders of the Facebook, the users of the social network fall under your responsibility. In 2018, it was reported that Facebook had 2.2 billion active users(“Facebook and Journalism. Part One."). This large audience should be approached in an ethically and morally conscious manner. However, an ethical and moral approach is not being used in the area of news users consume. Social media as a whole has become a news outlet with no newsroom. 63% of adults in America use social media as their source of news (“Facebook and Journalism. Part One."). This is no surprise to you, as board members to a social media company, but it strikes me as alarming. I can’t understand how a platform meant for connecting with friends is in charge of educating Americans on current events. However, it is clear Facebook is no longer focused on just connecting friends. One of your board members, Mark Zuckerberg, stated that “Facebook is a new kind of platform. It's not a traditional technology company. It's not a traditional media company.”(“Facebook and Journalism. Part Two.") I applaud Facebook for paving the way for non- traditional media. However, a non-traditional company inherently lacks the accountability that traditional media has.
News media at its best requires unbiased facts and this stands in stark contrast to social media’s unsubstantiated opinions. As the leaders of Facebook, you have attempted to combine both news and social media. Connecting people around the world to news is the intended goal. This in and of itself is a noble internal good. However, the external goods used to achieve that internal good are unjust. One example of an external good used is the micro-targeting algorithm. A users’ activity on the platform is deliberately tracked and used to create a profile. This profile is referred to as a psychographic profile. A users’ opinions, tastes, preferences, and much more gives Facebook the ability to target articles to certain users(“Facebook and Journalism. Part One."). As leaders of the organization, you have control over how these psychographic profiles are used. This means that news publishers and users consuming the news have no control over the flow of news content (“Facebook and Journalism. Part Two."). With the consumer and publisher not in control, Facebook can greatly impact what specific news users will view. A psychographic profile is sure to include where a user lies on the political spectrum. This allows the algorithm to deliver news from one half of the isle to a user. Paula Kerger, the CEO of PBS, spoke to my university, University of Sioux Falls, about “Restoring Confidence in the American Media”. She pointed out that by consuming news from one political perspective, Americans only see one side of the story. It seems to me America is more politically divided than ever. Facebook, the company you lead, has held a great impact on division in America. It could be argued that Facebook’s role within politics is simply conjecture. However, clear evidence lies in Facebook’s suppression of conservative news. In 2016, the tech website Gizmodo investigated Facebook “news curators” and found that conservative news was being suppressed from appearing on the Trending Topic list(“Facebook and Journalism. Part Two."). Deliberately eliminating any side of a political discussion is unjust, leaving Americans with an incomplete view of the world.
I’m sure, as board members of a social media giant, the term “fake news” is very familiar to you. Fake news is essentially misleading, false, and low-quality articles that use the tactic of clickbait. You may remember that in 2017, an update was introduced to try to deter fake news from spreading on Facebook. This update blocked ads from users who consistently shared fake news(“Facebook and Journalism. Part Two."). This “fix” seems more like a band aid, that actually gives Facebook more power to suppress certain news. However, I can sympathize with balancing suppression of news with the spreading of fake news. It’s not an easy balance of justice to achieve, but it is a necessary goal to reach. This balance is of course present only because of the decision to introduce news onto the platform in the first place.
The primary motivation for Facebook including news is not to connect the world. Facebook is a business, businesses are made to make money, so it is not shocking to say money is behind why news is on Facebook. What is shocking is the effects of monetizing news articles. News outlets have turned to several techniques to try to gain engagement and therefore money. One technique is clickbait, which is essentially writing anything to get a user to click. In order for articles to get clicks, a gap developed between the quality of print news and online published articles(“Facebook and Journalism. Part Two."). This new quality of online news is what I would bluntly call, junk. I myself am a Facebook user and articles on my personal feed fall in this junk category. As I scroll through my feed articles like “Um, There’s a Netflix but for Real Wedding Videos, and We’re Addicted” or “This “Would You Rather” Quiz will Reveal Your Perfect Volunteer Opportunity” or “Southwest Airlines Has Apologized After A 5-Year-Old Girl Named “Abcde” Was Mocked By An Employee”. These article titles are just a taste of the many low-grade clickbait attempts. One characterization of fake news or clickbait is the monetization of viral news stories. (Kitta) By monetizing news stories on a internet based platform, Facebook is creating the perfect breading ground for fake news.
Reformation is necessary for the news aspect of Facebook’s social media platform. There is two courses of action that have been used to try to amend the issues. One way is eliminating or suppressing certain news, but this leads to too much power in the hands of your company. The other way is allowing mostly anything to be posted and throwing the responsibility on the user. However, this attitude is that of a child saying “They did it first”. I suggest ridding Facebook of any and all news media articles. This course of action is extreme and I recognize that. However, it is the only way to ensure Facebook will no longer promote biased, censored and fake news media. The money news media has made for Facebook will need to be surrendered in the name of justice. If you, the board members of Facebook, can take it upon yourself to look past the money, you will see the benefits. One benefit is of course reducing the bad press Facebook has received for it’s use of news media. Beyond that, it will allow you to provide a more unbiased, uncensored, and free speaking platform to Facebook’s users. I urge every single board member to dissolve any and all news media on Facebook’s social media platform.
Works Cited
“Facebook and Journalism. Part One." OpenDemocracy, Jul 12 2018, ProQuest. Web. 21 Nov. 2018
“Facebook and Journalism. Part Two." OpenDemocracy, Aug 10 2018, ProQuest. Web. 21 Nov. 2018
Kitta, Andrea. "Alternative Health Websites and Fake News: Taking a Stab at Definition, Genre, and Belief." Journal of American Folklore 131.522 (2018): 405,412,510. ProQuest. Web. 29 Nov. 2018.