Posted on 07/17/2018 6:50:44 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Facebook is struggling with a difficult challenge — how to crack down on conspiracy theories and hoax sites on its platform.
On one side are groups that say the company should better police user content. They are pushing Facebook to take down videos and posts from organizations such as Alex Jones’s Infowars. That website has pushed hoaxes alleging the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was staged and that John Podesta, campaign manager for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid, was a part of a child-sex ring.
But on the other side are Republican lawmakers and conservatives more focused on another issue: censorship of conservative content or viewpoints. They are skeptical of Facebook and fear that any changes could target content from right-leaning outlets.
That’s put Facebook in a difficult spot.
The competing demands will be in the spotlight on Tuesday when a top executive testifies before the House Judiciary Committee. Facebook will send its global policy director, Monika Bickert, to testify alongside YouTube public policy director Juniper Downs and Twitter senior policy strategist Nick Pickles.
The hearing is focused on alleged bias against conservative content on social media. But that spotlight on alleged bias, many say, is making Facebook and others reluctant to take action against sites peddling hoax stories.
“I think that what’s happening is that this is the tech companies overcompensating ... to demonstrate that they are not biased,” a Republican strategist, who asked to speak anonymously, told The Hill.
Facebook’s own policy is that it will not take down content simply because it is false.
“I guess just for being false that doesn’t violate the community standards,” Facebook News Feed chief John Hegeman explained at a briefing with reporters in New York City on Friday.
A CNN reporter, Oliver Darcy, questioned the company’s position on Twitter on Friday.
“If FB is devoted to fighting false news, how does Infowars have an account on your site?” he tweeted.
Facebook cited free speech and the difficulty in knowing when content crosses a line.
“We see Pages on both the left and the right pumping out what they consider opinion or analysis — but others call fake news. We believe banning these Pages would be contrary to the basic principles of free speech,” the company responded.
Alex Jones also jumped in to defend Facebook.
“CNN & BuzzFeed are pissed off at Facebook because Facebook announced that it supports free speech,” he tweeted. “Let that sink in.”
Facebook says it is taking other steps to make false stories less visible on the platform by demoting them in their News Feed algorithms.
Katherine Haenschen, a professor at Virginia Tech who focuses on digital media, says the company’s stance is confusing and contradictory.
“Facebook has all of these rules about who can and cannot advertise on the platform. If you’re selling oregano capsules claiming they’ll cure cancer, they can be taken down,” she said. “What’s interesting is that they’ve refused the same standard to information that they apply to everything else.”
The challenge of dealing with false stories is nothing new, and some critics say Facebook took too long to begin addressing the problem.
They note that Facebook has helped Infowars and Gateway Pundit, two outlets that have promoted hoaxes, become bigger brands and reach a much wider audience. They point to Facebook’s use of brand “pages” that help outlets consolidate and share content.
Haenschen said Facebook should have acted sooner to target promoters of conspiracy theories.
“If Facebook addressed Infowars back when it was just the paper thing I could pick up in Austin at my mechanic, the audience was smaller — that wouldn’t have resulted in a huge outcry,” said Haenschen.
“Now that everything has gotten so contentious anything now would play into the [narrative of] victimization of conservatives in tech,” she continued.
The Republican strategist who spoke to The Hill said Facebook is in a tough bind.
“They are going so far to accommodate conservatives they’re overshooting by protecting outlets conservatives wouldn’t even defend,” the strategist added.
The new controversy comes as Facebook is struggling to find goodwill in Washington. The company has been battered by a slew of controversies, including its handling of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.
Conservatives are now eager to ensure the company and others in the tech world don’t discriminate against right-leaning views, which they see as a serious concern.
“There are algorithmic biases against conservatives that I think are a real issue that is worth addressing,” said Tim Miller, a GOP operative and Jeb Bush’s 2016 campaign communications director.
Infowars has few supporters, but one problem for Facebook is where to draw the line.
Gateway Pundit is a conservative site that has promoted stories accusing an innocent person of being the Las Vegas shooter and conspiracy theories about a shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla.
But at a hearing in April, some Republican lawmakers questioned if the website was being unfairly targeted by bias.
Facebook has been working to repair trust after the spate of recent controversies, including with television ads apologizing for its missteps and vowing to do better.
Now the company is finding itself under scrutiny again from all sides.
“The only thing that Facebook will let you sell on their platform is fake information,” said Haenschen.
That's not the issue.
The issue is outside forces, such as so-called self-proclaimed 'progressive' liberals, want to be the ones who determine rules, standards, and practices for Facebook and other companies.
It's these outside groups that are looking for a 'foot in the door' whereby they can at first, ask for a seemingly reasonable request (ban conspiracy theory groups and 'fake news'). However, once they know they can make the company implement their demands, their demands increase and become incessant and these so-called self-proclaimed 'progressive' liberals control the company or corporation.
The solution should be simple. Companies should tell outside groups to mind their own business. Unfortunately companies like Facebook quickly and enthusiastically acquiesce in order to divert criticism before they are hounded and shamed by so-called self-proclaimed 'progressive' liberals using the companies own social media platforms against them.
If these liberals continue to have their way first they come for the conspiracy sites, then they come for the Conservative sites.
This isn't an academic debate over the rights of businesses to run their companies as they want.
This is a real life fight to stop so-called self-proclaimed 'progressive' liberals from controlling the debate with them as the single arbitrators to decide what can and cannot be discussed in public forums.
It’s kinda funny how I just sorta stopped using facebook. Not entirely, but pretty much all I do is see (on my facebook phone app) that I have a message, check out the message and see that it’s not relevant to me, and I leave.
It’s kinda the same way I stopped going to singles bars, or stopped going to record stores. I just sort of moved on.
“If FB is devoted to fighting false news, how does Infowars have an account on your site?” he tweeted.
Right...
If FB is devoted to fighting false news, how does CNN have an account on your site?
This is much MORE valid than your claim, Darcy!
Facebook IS a global conspiracy.
I’m waiting for FB to start allowing people to mark posts as “political” so you can avoid them. There is too much negativity on FB and it is almost all related to politics.
What happens when the deep state wants to use it’s friends at FB to trickle misinformation to dilute the truth? I guess that will be fine, well, you know the greater good, bla bla bla.
“Facebook and every other social media sites are private businesses and should have the right to set their own rules, standards, and practices.
That’s not the issue. “
Should the phone company be allowed to deny you service because you are a conservative?
Your doctor?
Your mechanic?
If your open for public business, you need to serve the public.
Label fake news as opinion or a blog (or CNN...). Free speech should mean everyone gets a voice, no matter how asinine. People need to be intelligent enough to decide for themselves what to believe (Aye! There’s the rub, right?).
The MSM bases most of their stories on “reliable sources”.
The problem is that most of these “reliable sources” are pathological liars with axes to grind.
That is why almost everything the MSM publishes is “fake news”.
A CNN reporter, Oliver Darcy, questioned the company’s position on Twitter on Friday.
“If FB is devoted to fighting false news, how does Infowars have an account on your site?” he tweeted.
Answer. The same way that CNN does!
Large systems can fail. Massive systems fail massively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.