These are confusing times for social media executives, social media users and social media avoiders alike. Most daily use of social media involves staying in touch with friends and relatives, but with apps like Facebook and Twitter making headlines for manipulative political advertisements and fake news, defining how we want social media to operate has gotten tougher.
Confusion over social media was most recently manifested in Facebook’s latest controversy. At the end of September, the company turned over to Congress ads published by hundreds of fictional Facebook users that were later linked to Russian accounts in an attempt to sway American voters during the 2016 election. Following this, Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg made a video statement that included plans to make ad publishing on the site more transparent. In addition to helping Congress with further investigations as well as the Federal Election Commission with potential regulations, Facebook will require disclosure of who paid for political ads and to which users they are being shown.
An arguably more complicated issue that Facebook is currently dealing with, however, is the use of the platform to spread false information. Most recently, Facebook was used to circulate false stories of all kinds about the Las Vegas shooting, some of which were widely shared, and there are many other examples of untrue “news” stories becoming heavily viewed. The implications of this are frightening as an increasing number of people base arguments and decisions on information that has no root in fact. The extent to which fake news should be monitored is not as clear as for political advertising, though.
In his statement following the move by Congress, Zuckerberg said that Facebook does not read over content before it is posted, and that what is more, “our society shouldn’t want [them] to.” Many would agree that Facebook should be for personal expression and the sharing of ideas, but it is also now true that social media can be used to influence public opinion and even elections. This truth makes regulation of political advertising by Facebook and Congress easier to swallow, but Zuckerberg’s response also indicates that for many social media users, regulation would not be welcome elsewhere. However, if fake sources continue to be believed and shared, it is likely that future conversations will be about further regulation.
For the time being, anonymity and unscreened posts are valued elements of these sites. If these features are to continue, self-monitoring will be necessary. Using official news sources like newspapers to check the validity of content read online is one of the simplest steps to take. These news sources often have social media presences, making it easy to verify facts and then to share with other users who may have seen false stories. More cross-referencing social media users will mean less attention to fake news stories, and this could decrease the chance of Facebook needing to pre-screen posts in the future.
This also must continue to go on in the classroom. It is common for schools to teach students how to find legitimate sources for research, and this process should continue to be emphasized, with an included focus on online media in life as well as in research. The existence of fake news is a subject that could be discussed in school more formally, as well as ways to spot it and what to do. New ideas on how to handle fake news might come from class discussions as well. This does not account for the adults not currently in school, but on social media, students would know how to share more credible news sources with others.
The complexity of social media interactions extends beyond concrete topics like fake news and political advertisement, and conversations on how social media should operate will be very important conversations to continue. But while we work towards a more coherent vision of how social media should look in the future, reining in false and manipulative content must be a priority. As we have seen in the past few weeks, Congress can get involved where election meddling is concerned. But if, as Zuckerberg said, our society doesn’t want Facebook checking content before it is posted, the responsibility of informational integrity will fall to the people using these sites daily.
