We have a media that is complicit; it never pushs back when it has public attention and knows when being fed nonsense. I love Facebook, never read the "news" on FB, but without it, would never see photos of my nieces and nephew growing up. That's what FB means to me. If you are stupid enough to read and believe info posted on it, then th…
We have a media that is complicit; it never pushs back when it has public attention and knows when being fed nonsense. I love Facebook, never read the "news" on FB, but without it, would never see photos of my nieces and nephew growing up. That's what FB means to me. If you are stupid enough to read and believe info posted on it, then that's your problem. Same could be said for people who read and believe the checkout tabloids.
The problem, Judith, is that when people believe flawed information on Facebook, they form flawed opinions, then go to the polls and elect flawed leaders who then write flawed policy. So when you say, "...that's your problem", that's really not true. It's EVERYONE'S problem, especially when the algorithms are built to push disinformation to drive more engagement in order to generate greater advertising revenue. I understand that it's wonderful to see your nieces and nephews growing up, but there is a very dark side to this seemingly innocuous platform.
Hi John, I'm not one to give advice really, especially since I actively go after those on Facebook who push lies and disinformation. (I don't even know that it does any good, but I want people who lurk -- those who read the dialogue but who never engage -- to see the 'good folks' win for a change. Until someone goes low, I try to be non-confrontational and respectful. Some people just have always thought 'one way' about issues and it's important to inform whenever we can. (Of course, others are just trolls and when I identify them, I become a counter-troll.)
You didn't ask for my advice obviously, but I think, maybe just soften your delivery with Maureen? She seems nice! It's hard to tone things down when impassioned in one's beliefs... I have to remind myself always of this. Nobody is immune. Thanks for your kind words. You also Keep The Faith. Love Peace Respect to you as well.
Greg, Maureen and the issues we had long gone. Had time to review and I guess I have short fuse, have to watch that while participating in Thd Good In Us, Discretion is a part of dialogue, thanks for your input, Best Regards Jihn Pillin
Thank you for your thoughts. I also believe that listening to the flawed info on Fox News and in Tabloids is terrible, but I see no government intervention to deny people or organizations of this kind of free speech. One very great and grave responsibility of voting citizens is to inform themselves as best as possible. In school you do your pesky assignments, or fail. Before voting, you do your political reading or your elected leaders fail you. This is hard but the only means open to us voters. I don't know what is on Russian FB but there might be news of Russia's war in Ukraine. This would be good since their propaganda-laden media will not tell them. Two sides of this coin.
I don’t think supermarket tabloids have ever been a large-enough problem to affect our democracy and I doubt they ever will be. Fox News IS a major problem, one which begs for the same kinds of solutions required of Facebook. One must pick their battles however. I’ve not thought about Fox News nearly as much as Facebook because it’s much more in the public perception AS a problem. I choose to focus on Facebook because lots of people like you (and my wife, who’s a very smart lady) tend to think it’s not such a big deal and often excuse it, sometimes blaming the users for making it so sinister. And all the while, Facebook does threaten our democracy, through what they push and for the reasons they push it. (I use the pronoun ‘they’ because Facebook is not a thing, it’s a group of people who write its rules and policies for reasons only they seem able to justify.)
You were absolutely correct when you wrote that “one very great and grave responsibility of voting citizens is to inform themselves as best as possible.” The problem is that it’s NOT being done ‘as best as possible.” You were also correct when you wrote, “In school, you do your pesky assignments, or fail.” No argument there because I know what you were trying to say. But you can’t compare this with voting for flawed leaders. In school, if you don’t study the material, you will fail yourself, but in our democracy, if you don’t ‘study the material’, you will fail not only yourself, but every other citizen in your district. In the case of those voting for Donald Trump, they failed themselves and every other man, woman and child in this country. We have now have a six-to-three conservative majority in our Supreme Court, our voting rights are in peril and woman are about to lose their right to choose what’s best for their lives, just to name a few things, all because just enough people voted for a seriously flawed person to hold the highest office in our land. We truly reap what we sow in a democracy.
You wrote that “Before voting, you do your political reading or your elected leaders fail you.” That’s true enough and it’s an admirable statement. But what about those folks who HAVE done their political reading, but unfortunately chose Facebook (or Fox News) as their source of information? Do you think that these well-intentioned people have informed themselves ‘as best as possible’ when they read, hear and believe the lies and disinformation propagated on Facebook and Fox News?
Because of these lies and the great extent to which people believe them, actual events, news and problems are deemed either fake or real depending on one’s confirmation bias. In other words, most of us only believe what we choose to believe. People no longer bother to think for themselves in our mouse-click world. Instead, they’ll take the paths of least resistance wherever they find them. To find any real solution, critical thinking is usually required, but that takes actual work and mental energy, as well as a valuation of truth and understanding above all other things. That’s not how Facebook rolls.
Facebook is designed to be easy and convenient, anything but hard. Facebook wants engagement above all other things so it can make more money through advertising. It takes dedication and time to fact check stories, but only three mouse clicks are required to mindlessly ‘Like’ and ‘Share’ a false story with hundreds of like-minded friends before moving on to the next item pushed to you by Facebook in your newsfeed. It’s much less work than actually giving a shit about what you’re reading, and that’s what Facebook wants. They don’t want your sweat equity, they don’t want a healthy democracy we can be proud of, they want your engagement, that’s all they care about. You have to see the evil in that Judith. You have to see that this is inexcusable and that changes need to be made, either in our laws or in our mindsets.
Judith, I sense you are a very kind person! I'm glad you didn't take this as a belligerent reply! Take care and be well... and thanks for being among those who care in this world! :)
Another day in another time zone. Rereading the comment, I wish to thank Mary for giving us all a chance to state as succinctly as possible our opinion. I used tabloids in a generic sense to mean all printed fake news mediums, not literally. Also, I do not believe in shooting the messenger as appealing that may be to many. Zuckerberg is simply that, and FB may be spreading actual scenes of warfare in Russia where it is popular. Steve Brannon, Alex Jones, nor Tucker Carlson have been inhibited from their long-winded screes so why should Zuckerberg? Let this interesting discussion continue.
Mark Zuckerberg is NOT simply a messenger who bears no responsibility for the content of messages being delivered, so therefore your comment about ‘shooting the messenger’ doesn’t apply. I feel your comment trivializes the anger I and many others in our country feel is justified about how Facebook operates.
You wrote, “[Neither] Steve Brannon, Alex Jones nor Tucker Carlson have been inhibited from their long-winded screes so why should Zuckerberg?”
I ask you, what are you implying here? Are you saying that since Brannon, Jones and Carlson have not been held to account, that Zuckerberg shouldn’t be held to account either? If so, how is that a solution to the problems we face?
I’m not sure you’ve heard, but Facebook has been banned in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, but there may still be ways a few people are tuning in. Even still, you shouldn’t let Facebook off the hook simply because some images of Russia’s war in Ukraine are now visible in Russia on Facebook. In no way does that excuse the other deliberate actions or negligence of Facebook. Even if those photos prove beneficial, they take nothing away from the argument that Facebook operates with an apparent lack of ethics and morality in its pursuit of greater and greater advertising revenue. (As I see it, this is a case of ‘Observational Selection’, a logical fallacy in which one “counts the hits but ignores the misses.” Basically, it’s cherry-picking facts to support existing opinions or beliefs.)
Here are just 4 articles out of many I found after doing a quick google search of ‘How Oath Keepers used Facebook for January 6th Insurrection.” All are very in-depth except the one from Business Insider, but I included it because it’s very revealing in its own right. I invite you to sit down with a large coffee and read them. My hope is that they will help change your viewpoints.
I don't mean to trivialize your concern, it's just that if Zuckerberg disappears, another person like him will appear. He is a conveyer of messages and only that. The people who post are the problem as are the Trump supporters who claim Trump the truth-speaker and truth-seeker. Oh dear. Those others such as Jones, Tucker and Brannon should be prohibited under libel laws from directly lying to the massive audiences that listen to them, but they can hide behind the first amendment. Zuckerberg doesn't speak to anyone except his Board of Directors. This may be bad enough but other organizations and media platforms will arise just as quickly. I think getting rid of Alex, Steve, and Tucker will ease the airways to a much greater degree. The U.S. government officials don't seem to be able to tackle FB but I would hope they could forbid those three and others at Fox from spewing their harmful nonsense. As Jon Stewart once pleaded: "Stop. You are hurting America." The people on FB who repost nonsense are doing the same but I do not see how we can rid ourselves of their hideous views and allow sensible discourse proceed. If you know, please let Congress, the Senate and the rest of know. I don't.
It’s been awhile since we wrote to each other… sorry about that. Since I retired about a year ago, I have almost no time at all (and I thought I would have all the time in the world for all the things I love to do! I’m still waiting for that to happen.) I almost thought about not responding any further but I hate to leave things undone. Today, I found myself with a few minutes to spare in a quiet house for once.
I ‘get it’ with how you feel about Facebook. You said that you like Facebook because “without it, I would never see pictures of my nieces and nephews growing up. That’s what FB means to me.” There’s not a thing wrong with that. You’re just like my wife and my mother-in-law, two very nice people who only use FB to keep in contact with friends, relatives and (in my wife’s case) coordinate activity for the charity she helps run.
I still feel very justified in my criticism of Facebook – and social media in general – even while understanding your viewpoint. There are lots of things which are not wonderful about Facebook, many of which I’d bet many could be the subject of its own book. They’re beyond the scope of a blog reply, though. I’ll keep it the one thing that bothers me the most about Facebook, and I hope you’ll take time to read it.
I think we’re in trouble when we have a platform which allows lies and misleading information to pass unimpeded, but tends to block truths and facts. That’s what Facebook does. (I won’t explain how, as it would make for a very long reply. Just go with me on that for now, and judge for yourself later.)
I have to sidestep momentarily. Do you recall the often used argument in favor of common sense gun laws? Supporters of new laws will often say that our founding fathers could not have foreseen the types of weapons that would one day exist. The 2nd Amendment was born in a time when the single-shot musket was the most technologically advanced weapon available. In our present age, our firearms are so advanced and lethal that further regulation makes good sense. The technology of firearms advanced 250 years into the future, but our rights and laws stayed in the same place.
We can use the same argument for our 1st Amendment right to free speech. Our founding fathers could not have foreseen what something called ‘the internet’ would one day be. ‘Computers’ and ‘Facebook’ were terms which simply didn’t exist in the days of old-fashioned printing presses. Messages in those days were sent via printed pages or by couriers on horseback. Messages often took weeks or even months to reach their intended recipients. In contrast, messages on Facebook often ‘go viral’ and reach hundreds of millions of recipients overnight. Our ability to communicate advanced 250 years into the future, but our rights and laws stayed right in the same place. This is a huge problem when lies and falsehoods spread freely and easily, but carefully fact-checked claims never make it far from their starting points.
Straight out of Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf (which I read more than 30 years ago) is a line which reads, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that’s exactly what we’re seeing today. A child sex ring run out of the basement of a pizza joint? QAnon? A stolen election? That’s reality for many people. Facebook, seemingly without shame, contributes to that problem by not taking down information that has been proven to be false, all in the name of Free Speech. (And, um, greater advertising revenue, that too.) As you mentioned Jon Stewart saying, ‘Stop. You are hurting America.’ Maybe he wasn’t talking about Facebook, but Facebook is hurting America, and they aren’t stopping, but need to.
So what am I saying here? That our 1st Amendment right is bad? No, it’s good, but it needs to change with the times. It simply isn’t natural to be able to stand on a mountain top and scream into the air and have your voice be heard by 75% of America’s population. With Facebook however, that can happen daily if a person has enough followers. And when lies are the only thing propagating through the ether, people believe them when they’re repeated often enough (That’s about the only thing Hitler got right.)
Note that I have no solutions that would work in the short run, and sadly, we’re running out of time for ‘the long run’. I’m a retired truck driver with no more than average intelligence, but I see the ripple effects when lies and conspiracy theories land on their targets in a democracy. We’re on the verge of losing our democracy because our citizens – who vote for our leaders -- are believing bullshit. Facebook is part of the problem, not the solution. It can be benign – my wife’s cat videos she loves and your nieces and nephews growing up – all while an insidious undercurrent flows 24/7/365 to make tons of money for Facebook shareholders while keeping America in an ever-steepening nosedive.
You’re 100% correct that if Zuckerberg disappeared, someone like him would simply appear to replace him. The genie that is social media is out of the lamp to stay. The only solution is to make ‘thinking’ fashionable again. Teach ‘critical thinking’ in schools, teach people how to break down flawed arguments to their illogical components so they can be rejected. Our citizens have to want to be better than they’ve been. How does one explain all this to a congress person? (I certainly have no clue, and I wonder if it's even possible.)
Hi Judith! No worries at all! You and I are bucking the trend on social media! We're discussing our mildly different viewpoints without bickering, and that has to be one of the coolest 'little things' going these days!
What you wrote here is a tough one to answer though, and my wife is starting to give me 'The Look', which basically means "Don't think you're going to be sitting at that computer all day when there's so much work to be done around here!" My wife IS the boss around here, so I will have an answer later once I can give it the thought it deserves. Take Care and Be Well!
Thanks, Judith. I agree the user bears some responsibility for understanding the information. And Facebook as a concept is useful, and can be a helpful tool for reporting and getting information in some areas. But Mark Zuckerberg is a bad actor who deliberately drives users to misinformation and divisive content. He should bear significant responsibility, as should Fox.
I can't comment on Zuckerberg being a bad actor while allowing Fox News to go untethered on the airways. If Zuckerberg can be called and expected to appear before congressmen and women and senators, why not the people at Fox? Strange to me. Zuckerberg isn't commenting on politics as much as Tucker and Laura, etc. are on Fox News. Zuckerberg made a media platform, not opinion, whereas people on Fox continually tell lies and misrepresent our world.
We have a media that is complicit; it never pushs back when it has public attention and knows when being fed nonsense. I love Facebook, never read the "news" on FB, but without it, would never see photos of my nieces and nephew growing up. That's what FB means to me. If you are stupid enough to read and believe info posted on it, then that's your problem. Same could be said for people who read and believe the checkout tabloids.
The problem, Judith, is that when people believe flawed information on Facebook, they form flawed opinions, then go to the polls and elect flawed leaders who then write flawed policy. So when you say, "...that's your problem", that's really not true. It's EVERYONE'S problem, especially when the algorithms are built to push disinformation to drive more engagement in order to generate greater advertising revenue. I understand that it's wonderful to see your nieces and nephews growing up, but there is a very dark side to this seemingly innocuous platform.
Great Take Greg
Thanks much John! I do feel strongly about this issue, and I can tell you do as well!
Deleted this and replaced for Unity
Hi John, I'm not one to give advice really, especially since I actively go after those on Facebook who push lies and disinformation. (I don't even know that it does any good, but I want people who lurk -- those who read the dialogue but who never engage -- to see the 'good folks' win for a change. Until someone goes low, I try to be non-confrontational and respectful. Some people just have always thought 'one way' about issues and it's important to inform whenever we can. (Of course, others are just trolls and when I identify them, I become a counter-troll.)
You didn't ask for my advice obviously, but I think, maybe just soften your delivery with Maureen? She seems nice! It's hard to tone things down when impassioned in one's beliefs... I have to remind myself always of this. Nobody is immune. Thanks for your kind words. You also Keep The Faith. Love Peace Respect to you as well.
Greg, Maureen and the issues we had long gone. Had time to review and I guess I have short fuse, have to watch that while participating in Thd Good In Us, Discretion is a part of dialogue, thanks for your input, Best Regards Jihn Pillin
Thank you for your thoughts. I also believe that listening to the flawed info on Fox News and in Tabloids is terrible, but I see no government intervention to deny people or organizations of this kind of free speech. One very great and grave responsibility of voting citizens is to inform themselves as best as possible. In school you do your pesky assignments, or fail. Before voting, you do your political reading or your elected leaders fail you. This is hard but the only means open to us voters. I don't know what is on Russian FB but there might be news of Russia's war in Ukraine. This would be good since their propaganda-laden media will not tell them. Two sides of this coin.
Good morning, Judith!
I don’t think supermarket tabloids have ever been a large-enough problem to affect our democracy and I doubt they ever will be. Fox News IS a major problem, one which begs for the same kinds of solutions required of Facebook. One must pick their battles however. I’ve not thought about Fox News nearly as much as Facebook because it’s much more in the public perception AS a problem. I choose to focus on Facebook because lots of people like you (and my wife, who’s a very smart lady) tend to think it’s not such a big deal and often excuse it, sometimes blaming the users for making it so sinister. And all the while, Facebook does threaten our democracy, through what they push and for the reasons they push it. (I use the pronoun ‘they’ because Facebook is not a thing, it’s a group of people who write its rules and policies for reasons only they seem able to justify.)
You were absolutely correct when you wrote that “one very great and grave responsibility of voting citizens is to inform themselves as best as possible.” The problem is that it’s NOT being done ‘as best as possible.” You were also correct when you wrote, “In school, you do your pesky assignments, or fail.” No argument there because I know what you were trying to say. But you can’t compare this with voting for flawed leaders. In school, if you don’t study the material, you will fail yourself, but in our democracy, if you don’t ‘study the material’, you will fail not only yourself, but every other citizen in your district. In the case of those voting for Donald Trump, they failed themselves and every other man, woman and child in this country. We have now have a six-to-three conservative majority in our Supreme Court, our voting rights are in peril and woman are about to lose their right to choose what’s best for their lives, just to name a few things, all because just enough people voted for a seriously flawed person to hold the highest office in our land. We truly reap what we sow in a democracy.
You wrote that “Before voting, you do your political reading or your elected leaders fail you.” That’s true enough and it’s an admirable statement. But what about those folks who HAVE done their political reading, but unfortunately chose Facebook (or Fox News) as their source of information? Do you think that these well-intentioned people have informed themselves ‘as best as possible’ when they read, hear and believe the lies and disinformation propagated on Facebook and Fox News?
Because of these lies and the great extent to which people believe them, actual events, news and problems are deemed either fake or real depending on one’s confirmation bias. In other words, most of us only believe what we choose to believe. People no longer bother to think for themselves in our mouse-click world. Instead, they’ll take the paths of least resistance wherever they find them. To find any real solution, critical thinking is usually required, but that takes actual work and mental energy, as well as a valuation of truth and understanding above all other things. That’s not how Facebook rolls.
Facebook is designed to be easy and convenient, anything but hard. Facebook wants engagement above all other things so it can make more money through advertising. It takes dedication and time to fact check stories, but only three mouse clicks are required to mindlessly ‘Like’ and ‘Share’ a false story with hundreds of like-minded friends before moving on to the next item pushed to you by Facebook in your newsfeed. It’s much less work than actually giving a shit about what you’re reading, and that’s what Facebook wants. They don’t want your sweat equity, they don’t want a healthy democracy we can be proud of, they want your engagement, that’s all they care about. You have to see the evil in that Judith. You have to see that this is inexcusable and that changes need to be made, either in our laws or in our mindsets.
You Took The Elaboration Right Put Of My Mouth, Thanks Greg!
Gee, you make me wary of clicking "like" on your comment. Thanks for your lengthy reply. I appreciate it.
Judith, I sense you are a very kind person! I'm glad you didn't take this as a belligerent reply! Take care and be well... and thanks for being among those who care in this world! :)
And, um, I know I'm wordy. (grin!) I'll give you that one. Sincere as can be though!
Another day in another time zone. Rereading the comment, I wish to thank Mary for giving us all a chance to state as succinctly as possible our opinion. I used tabloids in a generic sense to mean all printed fake news mediums, not literally. Also, I do not believe in shooting the messenger as appealing that may be to many. Zuckerberg is simply that, and FB may be spreading actual scenes of warfare in Russia where it is popular. Steve Brannon, Alex Jones, nor Tucker Carlson have been inhibited from their long-winded screes so why should Zuckerberg? Let this interesting discussion continue.
Good morning, Judith.
Mark Zuckerberg is NOT simply a messenger who bears no responsibility for the content of messages being delivered, so therefore your comment about ‘shooting the messenger’ doesn’t apply. I feel your comment trivializes the anger I and many others in our country feel is justified about how Facebook operates.
You wrote, “[Neither] Steve Brannon, Alex Jones nor Tucker Carlson have been inhibited from their long-winded screes so why should Zuckerberg?”
I ask you, what are you implying here? Are you saying that since Brannon, Jones and Carlson have not been held to account, that Zuckerberg shouldn’t be held to account either? If so, how is that a solution to the problems we face?
I’m not sure you’ve heard, but Facebook has been banned in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, but there may still be ways a few people are tuning in. Even still, you shouldn’t let Facebook off the hook simply because some images of Russia’s war in Ukraine are now visible in Russia on Facebook. In no way does that excuse the other deliberate actions or negligence of Facebook. Even if those photos prove beneficial, they take nothing away from the argument that Facebook operates with an apparent lack of ethics and morality in its pursuit of greater and greater advertising revenue. (As I see it, this is a case of ‘Observational Selection’, a logical fallacy in which one “counts the hits but ignores the misses.” Basically, it’s cherry-picking facts to support existing opinions or beliefs.)
Here are just 4 articles out of many I found after doing a quick google search of ‘How Oath Keepers used Facebook for January 6th Insurrection.” All are very in-depth except the one from Business Insider, but I included it because it’s very revealing in its own right. I invite you to sit down with a large coffee and read them. My hope is that they will help change your viewpoints.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048543513/facebook-groups-jan-6-insurrection
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043377310/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-congress
https://www.justsecurity.org/78494/how-facebook-is-misleading-the-public-about-its-role-in-january-6/
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-siege-far-right-rioters-used-facebook-to-hunt-lawmakers-fbi-2021-1
I don't mean to trivialize your concern, it's just that if Zuckerberg disappears, another person like him will appear. He is a conveyer of messages and only that. The people who post are the problem as are the Trump supporters who claim Trump the truth-speaker and truth-seeker. Oh dear. Those others such as Jones, Tucker and Brannon should be prohibited under libel laws from directly lying to the massive audiences that listen to them, but they can hide behind the first amendment. Zuckerberg doesn't speak to anyone except his Board of Directors. This may be bad enough but other organizations and media platforms will arise just as quickly. I think getting rid of Alex, Steve, and Tucker will ease the airways to a much greater degree. The U.S. government officials don't seem to be able to tackle FB but I would hope they could forbid those three and others at Fox from spewing their harmful nonsense. As Jon Stewart once pleaded: "Stop. You are hurting America." The people on FB who repost nonsense are doing the same but I do not see how we can rid ourselves of their hideous views and allow sensible discourse proceed. If you know, please let Congress, the Senate and the rest of know. I don't.
Hi Judith!
It’s been awhile since we wrote to each other… sorry about that. Since I retired about a year ago, I have almost no time at all (and I thought I would have all the time in the world for all the things I love to do! I’m still waiting for that to happen.) I almost thought about not responding any further but I hate to leave things undone. Today, I found myself with a few minutes to spare in a quiet house for once.
I ‘get it’ with how you feel about Facebook. You said that you like Facebook because “without it, I would never see pictures of my nieces and nephews growing up. That’s what FB means to me.” There’s not a thing wrong with that. You’re just like my wife and my mother-in-law, two very nice people who only use FB to keep in contact with friends, relatives and (in my wife’s case) coordinate activity for the charity she helps run.
I still feel very justified in my criticism of Facebook – and social media in general – even while understanding your viewpoint. There are lots of things which are not wonderful about Facebook, many of which I’d bet many could be the subject of its own book. They’re beyond the scope of a blog reply, though. I’ll keep it the one thing that bothers me the most about Facebook, and I hope you’ll take time to read it.
I think we’re in trouble when we have a platform which allows lies and misleading information to pass unimpeded, but tends to block truths and facts. That’s what Facebook does. (I won’t explain how, as it would make for a very long reply. Just go with me on that for now, and judge for yourself later.)
I have to sidestep momentarily. Do you recall the often used argument in favor of common sense gun laws? Supporters of new laws will often say that our founding fathers could not have foreseen the types of weapons that would one day exist. The 2nd Amendment was born in a time when the single-shot musket was the most technologically advanced weapon available. In our present age, our firearms are so advanced and lethal that further regulation makes good sense. The technology of firearms advanced 250 years into the future, but our rights and laws stayed in the same place.
We can use the same argument for our 1st Amendment right to free speech. Our founding fathers could not have foreseen what something called ‘the internet’ would one day be. ‘Computers’ and ‘Facebook’ were terms which simply didn’t exist in the days of old-fashioned printing presses. Messages in those days were sent via printed pages or by couriers on horseback. Messages often took weeks or even months to reach their intended recipients. In contrast, messages on Facebook often ‘go viral’ and reach hundreds of millions of recipients overnight. Our ability to communicate advanced 250 years into the future, but our rights and laws stayed right in the same place. This is a huge problem when lies and falsehoods spread freely and easily, but carefully fact-checked claims never make it far from their starting points.
Straight out of Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf (which I read more than 30 years ago) is a line which reads, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that’s exactly what we’re seeing today. A child sex ring run out of the basement of a pizza joint? QAnon? A stolen election? That’s reality for many people. Facebook, seemingly without shame, contributes to that problem by not taking down information that has been proven to be false, all in the name of Free Speech. (And, um, greater advertising revenue, that too.) As you mentioned Jon Stewart saying, ‘Stop. You are hurting America.’ Maybe he wasn’t talking about Facebook, but Facebook is hurting America, and they aren’t stopping, but need to.
So what am I saying here? That our 1st Amendment right is bad? No, it’s good, but it needs to change with the times. It simply isn’t natural to be able to stand on a mountain top and scream into the air and have your voice be heard by 75% of America’s population. With Facebook however, that can happen daily if a person has enough followers. And when lies are the only thing propagating through the ether, people believe them when they’re repeated often enough (That’s about the only thing Hitler got right.)
Note that I have no solutions that would work in the short run, and sadly, we’re running out of time for ‘the long run’. I’m a retired truck driver with no more than average intelligence, but I see the ripple effects when lies and conspiracy theories land on their targets in a democracy. We’re on the verge of losing our democracy because our citizens – who vote for our leaders -- are believing bullshit. Facebook is part of the problem, not the solution. It can be benign – my wife’s cat videos she loves and your nieces and nephews growing up – all while an insidious undercurrent flows 24/7/365 to make tons of money for Facebook shareholders while keeping America in an ever-steepening nosedive.
You’re 100% correct that if Zuckerberg disappeared, someone like him would simply appear to replace him. The genie that is social media is out of the lamp to stay. The only solution is to make ‘thinking’ fashionable again. Teach ‘critical thinking’ in schools, teach people how to break down flawed arguments to their illogical components so they can be rejected. Our citizens have to want to be better than they’ve been. How does one explain all this to a congress person? (I certainly have no clue, and I wonder if it's even possible.)
Hi Judith! No worries at all! You and I are bucking the trend on social media! We're discussing our mildly different viewpoints without bickering, and that has to be one of the coolest 'little things' going these days!
What you wrote here is a tough one to answer though, and my wife is starting to give me 'The Look', which basically means "Don't think you're going to be sitting at that computer all day when there's so much work to be done around here!" My wife IS the boss around here, so I will have an answer later once I can give it the thought it deserves. Take Care and Be Well!
Thanks, Judith. I agree the user bears some responsibility for understanding the information. And Facebook as a concept is useful, and can be a helpful tool for reporting and getting information in some areas. But Mark Zuckerberg is a bad actor who deliberately drives users to misinformation and divisive content. He should bear significant responsibility, as should Fox.
I can't comment on Zuckerberg being a bad actor while allowing Fox News to go untethered on the airways. If Zuckerberg can be called and expected to appear before congressmen and women and senators, why not the people at Fox? Strange to me. Zuckerberg isn't commenting on politics as much as Tucker and Laura, etc. are on Fox News. Zuckerberg made a media platform, not opinion, whereas people on Fox continually tell lies and misrepresent our world.