Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wildfires-facebook/facebook-removes-posts-linking-oregon-wildfires-to-activist-groups-idUSKBN264013

Facebook has deleted user-generated posts claiming that Oregon’s wildfires were set by extremist political groups. According to the recently published Reuters article, Oregon government officials were flooded with messages concerning the thousands of rumors shared over the social media platform. Upon further investigations led by the FBI and Facebook’s fact-checking partners, Antifa and other far left-wing involvement in the fires is deemed as untrue. 

This scenario reminds me of how critical of a role that a SWOT analysis can be to an organization’s functioning, and how it then strategically guides public relations responses. In our recent lectures, we reviewed the acronym SWOT: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. We then practiced identifying components of this planning technique as it related to Milwaukee’s teen pregnancy prevention campaign several years ago. 

I recognize one of Facebook’s external threats as being its users. Actually, I find that it’s ironic that the same individuals who have made this platform so successful over the past decade also have the power to threaten its integrity. While users certainly have the freedom to post whatever they like (photos, videos, status updates, etc.), Facebook naturally serves as a vehicle in which information is spread – false information, in this case. Due to the serious nature of arson accusations and how overwhelmed Oregon’s state government had become, Facebook needed to address the situation. 

The article describes how Facebook initially began to flag posts deemed as controversial toward the wildfires, but ultimately pursued a more serious course of action in removing them altogether. Facebook publicly commented on this decision, citing that law enforcement agencies had shut down the validity of the claims. This action encompasses the “O” in SWOT analysis; Facebook’s opportunity was to depend on the guidance of an external entity (such as the FBI), and this ultimately had an influence. Similarly, I think one of Facebook’s strengths in the matter is how much power they have. A powerhouse company like Facebook undoubtedly has the privilege of wealth, access to resources, a knowledgeable team – among other valuable assets – that make prioritizing matters such as these a possibility. 

Facebook may be subject to scrutiny on the grounds of limiting free speech, however. From a public relations perspective, I don’t think this media coverage of their decision was particularly negative. The quotes included from Facebook representatives acknowledge the truth in their decision to eliminate debunked content and go even further to explain the decision, which seems to be textbook definition of best practices when it comes to PR. Officials at Facebook concerned themselves with all the right audiences: Facebook users whose posts had been removed, Facebook users who could’ve perhaps questioned whether or not such content was being removed and a larger public audience awaiting confirmation of all of the claims’ credibility. 

So, then what is a weakness?

Another crucial part of a public relations position is to consider the possible negative outcomes of a given campaign, scenario, news story, etc. I anticipate that Facebook’s actions reignite an already existing debate between what is considered to be free speech and also whether or not “fake news” should be filtered out of social media. As a Facebook user myself, I enjoy using this platform to freely share my own opinions and thoughts (within reason) about pretty much any issue. I can understand how users might mistrust the company if a post was removed, and I’m sure I would initially feel skeptical if the same happened to me. However, I think this is where it’s important, and a responsibility even, to be an informed user; Facebook has dedicated a page, titled Community Standards, to outwardly explained what is or isn’t allowed for posting. I feel like this notice, combined with the honest acknowledgement and rationale for their actions, is a step to combat some of the hate Facebook might receive in this debate.

 

Feel free to comment below and weigh in your input! How would you have handled the situation if you were in the shoes of Facebook’s PR?