I know you are posting an unpopular opinion, but I agree. Facebook has become a straw man for a lot of issues that we as a society are just too lazy to grapple with. So we just use outlets like Twitter, Facebook, etc as outlets. Meanwhile we seem to let traditional media completely off the hook. When in some cases (imo) they are quietly cheering for unrest because it makes for great TV/news.
It seems to me that traditional media has not been algorithmically promoting QAnon or Militia groups to their viewers and that difference is extremely important.
Holding broadcasters accountable is easier than holding "narrowcasters" like Facebook accountable because you don't see what narrowcasters are promoting. But when you do find out you see that it is things that broadcasters would never push both for ethical and commercial reasons. This is important to consider.
They've been promoting other ills to their readers instead, e.g. conspiracy theories about Russia. And they do it non-algorithmically, i.e. knowingly, and isn't that worse? At least with an algorithm the creator can claim any independent decision it makes wasn't an intended outcome. Journalists don't get to say that.
If you are implying that coverage of Russian election interference is promoting conspiracy theories, then you would need to contend with the actual facts of the Russian efforts to influence US electoral politics to make that case.
Even if you held that coverage of Russia's role in the 2016 election was promotion of a conspiracy theory it would still be an obvious false equivalence to compare that to the promotion of groups like Bugaloo (that has killed multiple federal officers) or QAnon (which has resulted in multiple kidnappings, many other crimes, and promotes the worst antisemetic conspiracies invented, and more far more absurd things).
This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?
If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
>"This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?"
>"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.
Telephone companies and email providers as well. Full transparency, no encryption, proactive censorship for the purpose of safety and protection. They shouldnt be letting anything dangerous over their tubes ever, and we shouldnt be tolerating their facilitation of violence.
The accusations are not "facilitation" so much as "promotion". Allowing Militia and QAnon groups/accounts/pages to exist might be one kind of bad, actively promoting them to improve engagement and ad sales is a different level.