Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial
nytimes.com

>In addition to doing more to weed out lies and false propaganda, Facebook could tweak its algorithm so that it does less to reinforce users’ existing beliefs, and more to present factual information. This may seem difficult, but perhaps the Silicon Valley billionaires who helped create this problem should take it on before setting out to colonize Mars.

Right, in principle Facebook should do this for the benefit of society, but on a practical consideration, would becoming a highly-involved arbiter of content be good for making money? Facebook isn't under any legal mandate to act as a referee - consider it unfortunate if you like, but I kind of shrug it off. Individual user responsibility should be a noteworthy counter-point, because as trite as it might sound, if Facebook is rife with issues and rot, then going there is probably not a good idea. If they happen to make more money by allowing junk in their system, then that's their decision to make. Eventually will it cost them users?

>The company’s business model, algorithms and policies entrench echo chambers and fuel the spread of misinformation.

If they want to serve up a garbage buffet and make a profit from it, I can't sit back and scold them too hard, I just have to excuse myself. It's not just on Facebook - commenting communities of any sort tend to generate clusters of like-minded folk. "Right" thinking or "wrong" thinking. Personally I don't walk around downtown digging through the trash for my lunch, and I don't get my worldview from Facebook. I do keep up with some people, but can count my weekly minutes on the site with two hands pretty much. Just my approach, YMMV.

Now it's definitely a question to ask but I'm afraid it's being asked as a way to explain Hillary's loss because it's easier to find a scapegoat than look introspectively --and Dems at least publicly say we want to avoid scapegoating, politically speaking.

In the end, I wonder, had Hillary won, would be seeing the same examination? Would we have people at the Times wondering if Hillary had won because of the spread of false news, or wonder about a conspiracy to railroad Bernie? Hard to say, but one wonders.

On the other hand, I can't agree more that they should surface more than mostly self-reinforcing news or information to their users.