“Who are these angels?” — Why Facebook Should Not Pick Winners and Losers
Recently, Mark Zuckerberg stated, “As a principle, in a democracy, I believe people should decide what is credible, not tech companies”. Yet, the voices clamoring for Facebook to step in and save us continue to grow more shrill.
It’s easy to see why anyone would hold this view The calculus is simple: there are bad things in the world, therefore somebody should do something to fix it.
At first, this appears as a fairly innocuous statement, and it might seem like there’s not much left to say. However, it’s a vague statement with unclear actionables, and merits a deeper analysis. I’ve highlighted the words that have a deeper meaning than meets the eye:
There are bad things in the world, therefore somebody should do something to fix it
First, isn’t it strange that I highlighted “bad”? Isn’t that a definition we should mostly be able to agree upon, at least at a general level? For example, the vast majority of us can agree that certain ideologies are bad (Naziism being a tired, yet canonical example).
Yes, most of us can agree that Nazism is very bad. However, the wrinkle is that we can’t seem to agree on who is a Nazi. This shouldn’t be all that surprising when you think about the incentives and benefits of calling someone a Nazi. You see, as a society that tacitly agrees on the fact that any identified Nazi should be pilloried, and not given a voice or a platform with which to use that voice, suddenly an opportunity arises.
If someone was able to somehow convince the general public that their political opponent is an ideology everyone agrees is bad, then they can effectively knock them out of the running, thereby clearing the path for their own political agenda. Along the same line of thinking, if someone happened to own a news channel full of politically like-minded people, with the ability to present the facts as they see fit, the power that is afforded could be intoxicating.
We can’t all agree on what is bad, for the simple reason that we can’t trust human beings to be forthright and unbiased.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say we all have the facts, reported accurately and fairly, and can all generally agree on the rights and wrongs in the world.
That brings us to that word, somebody. Who, exactly? To many, again the calculus is simple. Who has the most power? That’s who should fix the problems. Simple.
The United States Constitution created a government that is an anomaly in world history that is full of tyranny and bloodshed. Historically speaking, bad speech has never been protected as it is now. Sometimes bad speech was daring to suggest that the Earth revolves around the Sun, sometimes it was the crime of interpreting the Bible differently, and sometimes it was just simply criticizing someone in power who happened to have the authority to decide what good and bad speech is.
In the United States, there isn’t one entity that gets to enforce naughty or nice speech. If there is a dissenting opinion, it can be spoken freely, and in fact, all great scientific discoveries are predicated on dissent. I don’t happen to think that it’s a coincidence that the explosion in scientific progress happened at the same time with the advent of a new progressive society and government in which dissent has been allowed and even encouraged.
However, for the first time in history, a non-governmental, non-Papal entity has the power to decide who the winners and losers are when it comes to speech. There are 190 million United States citizens on Facebook, which means roughly 70 percent of adults use this platform for communication, for news and information which are used to making voting decisions. By a simple tweak of an algorithm, one line of thinking can be subtly promoted while the other not so much. Facebook has the power to influence elections, across the entire globe. This should not be taken lightly.
Always remember, that the people who you put in charge are human beings with hopes, dreams, fears, biases, and vices like the rest of us. These arbiters of truth could just as well be Bill who leaves down the street. Tomorrow, they could be completely different — they could be Trump voters for all you know. To quote Milton Friedman “just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?”
Assuming we can all agree on what is bad, and that Bill The Truth Arbiter is perfectly moral and unbiased, just exactly should we do about people with bad speech?
In centuries past, we could throw them in prison or take the cheaper option and just behead them and be done with it(though who is going to foot the cleaning bill?). In this day in age, we take a less violent vigilante ‘cancel’ approach, in making sure the undesirables don’t get a seat at the table.
When we remove somebody’s voice, what is our objective? Are we trying to ensure that people will only hear one side (the correct side, of course, at least according to Bill) and that they don’t need to perform any critical analysis? Would such critical thought make their lives too difficult and complicated?
Do we fear that bigots and flat-earthers are too persuasive? Maybe they’ll present too good of points and that general society won’t be able to resist the allure? Maybe we’re afraid they’ll convince us?
To be clear, Facebook has every right to decide who can provide content for their platform. But Facebook users should be trusted to develop their own sense for what is good and bad information and not have information hidden like toddlers being restricted from watching Game of Thrones.
Rather than protecting people from information, this is an opportunity to engender critical thinking and civil discourse. Civilly asking someone to rationalize their viewpoints might actually help someone gain a new perspective. Simply removing their voices will not.
