Recently, Facebook has been accused of influencing the election by allowing fake news articles to show up on people’s news feeds. In response to these accusations, Mark Zuckerberg released a statement on Friday giving a broad overview of what Facebook was planning to do to combat fake news stories on their site. However, he stated no concrete plans, just a list of options.
Many people say that Facebook should better monitor for fake articles. However, some people say Facebook should allow people to post what they want. This comes back to the idea of citizen journalism and who is liable for information posted on Facebook and other social media sites. The one side of the argument says that Facebook should stop the spread of misinformation because it leads to a misinformed public. The other side says that people should be allowed to post, but it’s up to the reader whether or not to trust a source.
This is a highly complex issue with many varying opinions. As for employees within Facebook, there is much debate on whether or not they have done something wrong. Although Facebook does not, as of yet, have a concrete plan in place to either stop or allow fake news articles on the site, hopefully they will decide soon, so that we may all either feel more comfortable with articles on Facebook or entirely more wary.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/facebook-considering-ways-to-combat-fake-news-mark-zuckerberg-says.html?ref=technology
Like Chalsey stated, if users blindly believe everything they read then the fault should not entirely rest on the social networking giant. Curbing content on the site is probably not the solution. Facebook is meant to connect individuals and for them to have the freedom to express themselves. However, like everyone has posted fake news articles is a growing concern. Just during the election period this uptick could be argued to have influenced decisions. According to data from a Facebook-monitoring tool cited by BuzzFeed, the top 20 fake news stories collectively got more engagements- shares, likes, and comments- than 20 factually accurate news stories shared by mainstream news outlets. Mark Zuckeryburg claims that these fake news stories do not influence people. Although, the article contradicts that statement. It states how a secret study by Facebook found it was able to influence the moods of users by showing them more or less positive posts in their new feed. In addition, the site was able to help register 2 million voters. Finally, the site also has a whole advertisement department dedicated to signing up political organizations to buy advertisement. They have enough clout to influence generations, but this just seems to be more of an ethical dilemma. I do not thinking blaming one specific group is right, reporting should be factual and unbiased not financially motivated.
http://www.businessinsider.com/fake-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook-before-us-election-report-2016-11
I read about Facebook and all false election news on IST 110 blog last week, and I said that I personally do not understand why people are blaming Facebook for the election. Yes, there was a lot of fake news on Facebook that might slightly impacted decisions of some people, but Facebook should not get all the blame for the result of election. Like you said in the post, I totally agree that there is nothing wrong with people posting what they want to say on Facebook. Citizen journalism allows anyone in public to post what they have seen, heard and thought on social media. I personally think that it is one’s responsibility to differentiate between false and true stories. They should research about the news more before they clarify that the information in the news is 100% true. Also, false information is everywhere, not only on Facebook. People are blaming Facebook because they are just mad about the result and got nothing to blame on. People better stop spreading those fake articles, and also, Facebook needs to try to stop allow fake news articles on their website. I think that this is not only the responsibility of ones who post false information, but everyone’s responsibility to stop spreading the misinformation.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/19/13685548/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-problem-solutions
https://www.wired.com/2015/01/facebook-wants-stop-lies-letting-users-flag-news-hoaxes/
* My source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html?_r=0
I learned about this topic in my COMM 310 class which lent me extra information on this topic. Facebook is saying that they are not a news website, however in every way they are even though they may downplay that categorization. In relation to the recent election, many have blamed Facebook which had very poor verification process of the news that is distributed on its site. The amount of articles that proclaimed that “The Pope Endorses Donald Trump” has created a worthy controversy. I believe that since Twitter recognizes itself as a news media website as it did when it categorized it’s mobile app in the news category. The Washington poll released recent data saying “the latest Washington Post-Schar School national poll shows that when people are asked where they got their election news, 56 percent said television, and 30 percent said the Internet”. That is a pretty large amount of media attention. Interestingly, “among the sources on the Internet, 32 percent of the respondents identified social media”. Likewise, social media plays a huge role and taking responsibility and recognizing the platform they have I think it is wise Facebook is taking a closer look at who they are. Google has wisely said “Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content or the primary purpose of the web property”. Likewise, Facebook needs to follow the example Google has which can also be described as a relayer of news information and realize the value they have in providing news to the masses.
Facebook is not a news site but rather a site that can be used for citizen journalism. The post usually come from other people and not an established news organization. This sorta highlights one of my problems with citizen journalism in that whether you can trust the information being posted or not. With traditional media they have a heavy incentive to get the facts right because it would tarnish their reputation if they had to do a retraction. Citizen journalist on the other hand don’t have that type of incentive and if they had an agenda to push or a heavy bias, they could spread misinformation with little consequences on their end. In terms of Facebook I don’t think they should have sort of a strike system to users who repeatedly post fake news articles without explicitly stating that the article is fake but that’s as far as it should get. I think people themselves need to take a more proactive approach to the news and check to see if the article is fake themselves. Mark Zuckerberg said it himself that “We do not want to be arbiters of truth ourselves..” and I agree. This also goes into what social media is and what it can be used for. Social media is a way to connect people and share ideas, moments and have discussions. In that sense it allows people to share their moments with other people through citizen journalism but its up to that person and not the social media platform to be truthful. Its also up to the reader to discern whether that article is truthful or not and not just blindly believe everything they the internet to be truthful.