Yes, we do want Facebook to be an arbiter of truth vs lies, that’s been the standard of news for decades. It’s part of the responsibility of spreading news.
44% of Republicans believe Hillary Clinton ran a children’s prostitution ring, mostly because of “news” shared on FB.
44% of Republicans believe Hillary Clinton ran a children’s prostitution ring, mostly because of “news” shared on FB.
But distinguishing btw truth & falsehood is the wrong faming of the problem. The deeper issues are:
1) lies are much more contagious when shared by friends and family — we have strong subconscious motivation to agree with our tribe (@jonhaidt).
1) lies are much more contagious when shared by friends and family — we have strong subconscious motivation to agree with our tribe (@jonhaidt).
@JonHaidt 2) people add powerful survival instincts to social media engagement; both sharing and browsing are charged with much more emotion than reading CNN or NYT, which in turn makes us more irrational and susceptible to deception.
@JonHaidt 3) amplification factor — with survival emotions heightened (fear, outrage, anger, rage), we are much more likely to share the fake news (Pope endorses Trump!) This is great for Facebook’s revenue, and it makes us far less tolerant of each other’s beliefs.
@JonHaidt 4) echo chambers — users stay in their lanes with all this amplified, outrage-producing content that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, sinking deeper into their political ideologies rather than encouraging rational thought, neutrality or cooperation.
@JonHaidt 5) the algorithm is set up to present more outrageous content within users’ ideology, pushing them to further extremes within their party allegiance and serving up conspiracy theories, which get more engagement by the millions vs. than calm, rational truth.
@JonHaidt 6) FB’s main product is microtargeting, the ability to serve up specific content to highly precise segments of the population. Political groups can exploit this feature, as Cambridge A did on behalf of the Trump campaign. They served highly deceptive content to vulnerable groups.
@JonHaidt All together, these factors create a firehose of disinformation, emotional overreaction, and amygdala overdrive, making the reading and sharing of news a highly fraught processes — unlike on CNN, or Apple News or even on Breitbart.
@JonHaidt Politics requires rationality, but FB is the very opposite of that. It highjacks our logical brain apparatus (prefrontal cortex) & allows the amygdala’s irrational survival mechanisms to direct how you perceive & share “news.” More triggering = higher engagement = great for FB.
@JonHaidt This amplifies outrage, hatred & lies. It’s easy for foreign actors & deceptive political actors to take advantage of these brain short circuits & exploit our survival instincts for their political purposes (watch The Great Hack docu by @profcarroll)
@JonHaidt @profcarroll Allowing survival emotions to drive the editorial process creates deep social fissures that are driving us further and further apart, instead of encouraging calm, rational approaches and reaching across the aisle.
@JonHaidt @profcarroll So ….. would we want a tech company to judge what’s true and false? Yes. Because our political process, our social stability, and our democracy are at stake if it doesn’t. Next question: will FB do so? Not unless they’re forced.
