Facebook may be one of the most popular platforms out there, but it is also the one that comes under public scrutiny the most! Elections can be intense, and it is crucial that information is presented transparently without any modifications to the public. Facebook is one of the platforms that is used by news channels widely. While many think that the social platform would strongly follow journalism ethics, the internal documents say otherwise.
Donald Trump's 2016 win did not come without its challenges. Soon Facebook came under the public's radar for sharp criticism. Allegations were made against the platform that focused on the fundamentals of the product. Many claimed that the platform flooded users' news feeds with false facts, data and information. Facebook apparently received approximately $81 billion from the electoral competitors so that ads could be run in their favor. Mark Zuckerberg worsened the situation for himself and the platform by releasing a statement that Facebook cannot influence voting trends and that to assume anything alike would be pretty crazy. The world's fastest-growing and most used platform's CEO would soon regret his own words a year later!
Gizmodo, an online blogging platform, has been making efforts to release Facebook papers to the general public. After the fiasco of the elections being meddled with, sources within Facebook said that influencing politics and votes has been a discussion and effect in the company for the past year. Regular discussions took place regarding the advertisement of false news, facts and information that were produced with the very aim of tipping elections and manipulating the general public! A close-by source that was a part of these meetings informed that updates were in development by the platform to reduce the flow of fake news, and any political connections were flagged if they were a part of it. however, everything was scrapped due to the fear of upsetting conservatives
The platform was approached officially to release a statement or comment on the update; however, they refused to even acknowledge its very existence. They even declined to comment on anything regarding the false information that came from political candidates. While the platform is maintaining a position of no bias and external influences on its decision making, the internal leaked statements and papers from the people working at the company say otherwise.
Gizmodo's diligent work towards acquiring and making available the Facebook documents has been successful for the third time. The latest batch of papers brings light onto fascinating notes about the company's inner workings and its limitations in making any concrete decisions to limit misinformation. Employees who often come up in the papers often refer to Facebook Newsfeed updates rejected because the platform thought that certain political groups might benefit more from it than others. However, its own users believed that the update was able to push content that is informative and based on facts!
The same documents also reveal that the social platform only took active and dedicated action towards 2% of the hate speech. This, too, is an approximation, and the accurate figures may be lower. Different sets of documents revealed that the platform worked on restricting political content; however, its internal employees expressed their disgust regarding the decision. The policy was enforced in such a way that pages with high misinformation were being pushed onto users' news feeds.
Facebook papers have been under such scrutiny that even legal actions claim they should not be made public. The moderation of the platform remains a question. If political parties were to learn their inner workings given the loose set of regulations, the already widespread misinformation would get a significant boost.
Read next: Meta Publishes New Report That Highlights ‘Most Viewed Content’ On Facebook Feeds
Donald Trump's 2016 win did not come without its challenges. Soon Facebook came under the public's radar for sharp criticism. Allegations were made against the platform that focused on the fundamentals of the product. Many claimed that the platform flooded users' news feeds with false facts, data and information. Facebook apparently received approximately $81 billion from the electoral competitors so that ads could be run in their favor. Mark Zuckerberg worsened the situation for himself and the platform by releasing a statement that Facebook cannot influence voting trends and that to assume anything alike would be pretty crazy. The world's fastest-growing and most used platform's CEO would soon regret his own words a year later!
Gizmodo, an online blogging platform, has been making efforts to release Facebook papers to the general public. After the fiasco of the elections being meddled with, sources within Facebook said that influencing politics and votes has been a discussion and effect in the company for the past year. Regular discussions took place regarding the advertisement of false news, facts and information that were produced with the very aim of tipping elections and manipulating the general public! A close-by source that was a part of these meetings informed that updates were in development by the platform to reduce the flow of fake news, and any political connections were flagged if they were a part of it. however, everything was scrapped due to the fear of upsetting conservatives
The platform was approached officially to release a statement or comment on the update; however, they refused to even acknowledge its very existence. They even declined to comment on anything regarding the false information that came from political candidates. While the platform is maintaining a position of no bias and external influences on its decision making, the internal leaked statements and papers from the people working at the company say otherwise.
Gizmodo's diligent work towards acquiring and making available the Facebook documents has been successful for the third time. The latest batch of papers brings light onto fascinating notes about the company's inner workings and its limitations in making any concrete decisions to limit misinformation. Employees who often come up in the papers often refer to Facebook Newsfeed updates rejected because the platform thought that certain political groups might benefit more from it than others. However, its own users believed that the update was able to push content that is informative and based on facts!
The same documents also reveal that the social platform only took active and dedicated action towards 2% of the hate speech. This, too, is an approximation, and the accurate figures may be lower. Different sets of documents revealed that the platform worked on restricting political content; however, its internal employees expressed their disgust regarding the decision. The policy was enforced in such a way that pages with high misinformation were being pushed onto users' news feeds.
Facebook papers have been under such scrutiny that even legal actions claim they should not be made public. The moderation of the platform remains a question. If political parties were to learn their inner workings given the loose set of regulations, the already widespread misinformation would get a significant boost.
Read next: Meta Publishes New Report That Highlights ‘Most Viewed Content’ On Facebook Feeds