Facebook, the largest social networking site in the world, is facing the most serious crisis of trust since 2018, after the scandal of the company Cambridge Analytica. It is only a matter of time before EU and US regulators intervene and regulate its operation.
Recently, a committee of the US Senate and the British Parliament, respectively, listened carefully to the revelations of Ms. Francis Hougen, a former Facebook executive. This particular witness (whistleblower) spoke in a documented and credible manner, giving publicity to other pages of internal documents. In a series of articles, the Washington Post was the first to publish several of its revelations. U.S. Attorneys and Regulators are already dealing with them.
What can be deduced from what Ms. Haugen has said and the evidence she has provided is that Facebook is acting hypocritically and possibly misleading. While Facebook claims to combat misinformation and hate speech, it does not. This is because his administration chose profits to be above safety, products that harm children, intensify the image and weaken democracy.
In addition, she said, the company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram better, but will not make the necessary changes. Ms Haugen also cited internal Facebook searches, which the company ignored, such as
• the negative perception that teenagers acquire about their body through the use of Instagram.
• The push of conservative perceptions of citizens on extremist websites.
• The misinformation about the US presidential election in 2020, which led to the invasion of the Capitol.
Ms. Haugen believes that Facebook can not regulate itself, because it is stuck in a vicious cycle of feedback. If left alone, it will continue to make choices contrary to the public interest.
But why does this happen? Because its operating model, like other social media, is based on user feedback. Algorithms actually prioritize what is likely to hold our attention. And, of course, given human nature, our attention is drawn to extreme, eccentric or paranoid perceptions. It is not only Facebook that is entangled in this vicious circle of algorithmic feedback, but also the users themselves.
Mr. Zuckerberg, the founder and owner of Facebook, argued that it would be unreasonable, he said, for his company to prioritize harmful content, as advertisers would avoid advertising on a platform that promotes hatred and misinformation.
Sure this is a plausible argument, but without substance.
• Misinformation is an outsider – the cost of a business that society bears, for example infection – that is, a side effect, not the main purpose of Facebook. But as long as the exterior is politically tolerable, producers and consumers may consider it undesirable, but inevitably bad, so they can bypass it, logically and morally.
• Facebook, with almost 3 billion users worldwide, is too big for advertisers to ignore. They have to use it if they want to survive in business.
In general, in a legally unregulated environment such as social media, the protection of corporate interests tends to prevail. The public interest, as a value, shrinks self-servingly to the minimum observance of the existing law and the production of wealth in general. The crumbs of corporate charity then soothe the consciences and shut their mouths.
In a liberal democracy, however, difficult situations are only temporarily repelled. Civil society is mobilized, even through Facebook, putting the public interest at the heart of public discourse.
In Democracy, the “Demο”* will have the last word.
* The Greek word “δημοκρατια” (democracy) comes from the union of two words, the “Δημος” (Demo), where, in ancient Athens, characterized the entire Athenian people who had the right to vote and from the word “κρατος” which means sovereign in secular matters. Δημος + κρατος = Δημοκρατια.
