[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. :)