[Endama]

I don't know if this is necessarily the right thing to do, I understand that Facebook (and others) were really effectively weaponized by malicious foreign actors, but conceding by not participating in journalism feels wrong to me.

This is indicative of a larger question that I think we, as the tech industry, need to really ask ourselves: to what degree are the platforms responsible for fixing the ills of the connections between users. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. are all Western businesses operating at international scales. Is it "right" for them to impose western approaches to journalism, "truth", civic engagement, digital literacy, etc. to the rest of the world?

If the answer is yes, we must come to the realization that these platforms cannot be impartial, if the answer is no, we must accept that we, as an industry, are going to complicit in the systematic harm of societies and must accept that as table stakes.

Now I don't think this is necessarily a zero-sum situation, Salesforce probably doesn't have the same kind of civic obligations that FB, Twitter, Google have; but the clear lines of engagement in the spectrum of SAAS companies needs to be discussed.

[StanislavPetrov]

> really effectively weaponized by malicious foreign actors

The truth is that social media has been been used by a wide variety of state and non-state actors to push their respective agendas. Its false and misleading to suggest that somehow "our" governments aren't engaged in exactly the same type of propaganda - mostly to a much greater degree.

>Is it "right" for them to impose western approaches to journalism, "truth", civic engagement, digital literacy, etc. to the rest of the world?

I'm not sure what sort of journalism you are referring too, but "western journalism" as it exists in the form of legacy or "corporate" media has absolutely nothing to do with truth, civic engagement, or corporate literacy. Its a non-stop barrage of propaganda, just like most "news" channels based in other countries are non-stop barrages of propaganda from a different perspective. Pretending that western governments, particularly the US government, haven't actively sought to spread propaganda and control the narrative for over a century is to betray a stunning ignorance of history.

I think the larger question for those in tech needs to be, to what degree will they allow various nations and states to control and influence the speech on their platforms? The free and unfettered exchange of information is going to be potentially damaging to the official propaganda narrative pushed by every government. Unfortunately tech companies have to be based somewhere, and are always going to be subject to the draconian threats from governments no matter where they are based. To pretend that this doesn't happen in "the West" is again to ignore history. Go ask former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio what he thinks.

[hkai]

Facebook found out that by participating in the news business, it necessarily must take sides in the political arguments between the left and the right.

I think Facebook figured it's not a battle they can win, because for the right, they seem to be abusing their power, and for the left they seem like they didn't do enough.

[threeseed]

> Is it "right" for them to impose western approaches to journalism

It's largely a moot point.

Because no company is going to want to alienate themselves from three very large markets (EU, US, UK) all of whom have legal and political structures which govern journalistic behaviours.

[saagarjha]

What about the large market that is China?

[rozenmd]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

[dvtrn]

: to what degree are the platforms responsible for fixing the ills of the connections between users. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. are all Western businesses operating at international scales. Is it "right" for them to impose western approaches to journalism, "truth", civic engagement, digital literacy, etc. to the rest of the world?

I'm unsure I understand the juxtaposition here, can you elaborate on the correlations you see between the responsibility of online platforms to 'fix' my friendships and the eagerness you see within those platforms to act and behave as components of the 4th estate?

It's possible I've read your post improperly and came away with the wrong impression, can you clarify what you mean? Thanks :)

[Endama]

For example, it could be the case than in a given country, a news article in which the son of a prominent CEO does something socially embarrassing relative to that culture (perhaps he didn't get into a top university and instead attends a community college) which causes enough public outcry that he resigns. Is it right for Twitter, Facebook, etc. to push up comments and reactions, via machine learning algorithms or whatever, that bias more towards western (read: American) values about what is considered social outrage?

Conversely, what if ideas about corruption are treated differently in different countries. If it is the case that it is socially expected/accepted to pay officials for certain services, is it right for a western tech company to promote comments/content that show dissent and value western values over the local ones?

[dvtrn]

No you're right, that's a valid question but I read your post as having two very good questions seemingly juxtaposed as being asked to raise a singular point. In one sentence you talked about social networking and what it means for connections among friends, the very next question you asked about social media and what it means as an arbiter of information about the world we inhabit.

Was I mistaken to read those two separate inquiries as being of the same cloth? That's where I got confused and was wondering if you could help me understand your point a little better.

[Endama]

My coalescing point is that I see Facebook pulling back out of the news space as choosing to not play the game at all, that it is not a battle that they necessarily want to play because of the moral quagmire I outlined above. I don't think that this is a good choice because it doesn't engage with useful questions but just kicks the can down the road for another company, maybe even another generation, to deal with.

Thank you for bringing up how confusing my point was, really appreciate it. :)