Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about Facebook’s role in our democracy, and its responsibilities to police speech on its platforms. My position has changed the more I’ve thought about it, and I wrote this to try and articulate some of those thoughts for myself.
I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical mistakes. Unlike visual design, I am not confident in my ability to express myself in this medium. However, this subject is too complex to meaningfully discuss any other way.
I am incredibly proud to have worked at Facebook from 2008–2014. I love the ideas Facebook represents to me—openness, connectedness, equality. I also have tremendous respect for Mark Zuckerberg. Over the years, I was fortunate to have several opportunities to collaborate with him, and I know him to be a thoughtful leader. However, I think he and Facebook have a responsibility to do more. Specifically, there are two areas I take issue with:
The “gray area” problem
I have been closely aligned with Mark and Facebook’s position that they should not be in the business of fact-checking most speech on their platforms. Especially speech from our elected officials, even when I personally vehemently disagree with those elected officials.
Core to my previous way of thinking was this question: Does AT&T have a responsibility to listen in to your phone calls and intercede to warn someone you’re speaking with that I may be lying? I think most of us would say no.
In an open system—like the internet—I believe that people should have absolute freedom of speech, despite the costs. Some of these costs are really high, things like enabling hate speech, bullying, terrorist organizing, child pornography, revenge pornography, etc. It’s a separate issue, but with some of these I think we can—and should—criminalize other aspects of this behavior, but not the speech itself.
However, just because I believe you should have the right to say whatever you want on your personal website, that doesn’t mean I believe you have the right to say it on Facebook. Facebook is not an open system, it is a walled garden, and for valid reasons it has rules that restrict our speech. This is usually a good thing, we give up some control over our expression for the efficient distribution and personal safety Facebook provides.
The biggest challenge is that these decisions of what is acceptable and what isn’t are often not binary. Language is imprecise, so what happens when something said is in the gray area? Who decides what stays and what goes? Should Facebook prioritize the rights of the individual, or the best interests of the community? Mark has said that he believes in these situations Facebook should err on the side of free expression. I believe that they should use their power in the best interests of the community, or that they should relinquish their power to the community.
To me it’s an issue of fairness. Just as no one should be above the laws of our country, no one should be above the communities rules. If Facebook is going to carve out special status for speech that has been deemed “newsworthy” they should at least acknowledge that the speech in question would not be tolerated from other non-newsworthy people. I thought what Twitter did recently was a reasonable compromise—leave the speech up, but put it behind a notice and disable liking and sharing. By not exercising this power Facebook creates a double standard and is giving tacit approval to what is said on their platforms.
To their credit, Facebook is working to establish the external Oversight Board to make these kinds of decisions for them in the future. Kind of like a Supreme Court for what is acceptable speech on Facebook. Mark and Facebook have agreed to abide by the boards decisions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. I hope they also consider some ways to acknowledge content that otherwise violates the community rules that has been allowed to remain because of its news value. I think that context would be valuable.
The “algorithm” problem
Above I compared the idea of censoring speech on Facebook to censoring speech on AT&T. While I worked there, Facebook often thought of itself as just another neutral public utility—like a phone company or electricity utility—but it isn’t.
The problem is that by designing the newsfeed to be algorithmic, Facebook is inherently making curatorial choices to optimize certain metrics—like engagement. The choices of what metrics to optimize for amplifies or suppresses certain speech. We all understand that there are people working at Facebook who wrote those algorithms, and therefore have power over what is published and discoverable on Facebook.
Unfortunately, it seems that the algorithms Facebook has created thrive on amplifying conflict and extreme points of view. There is an argument that Facebook is just giving people what they want—like people who eat too much junk food. That may be true, and I agree we should all take much more individual responsibility for the media diet we consume. However, Facebook shouldn’t pretend that it is neutral or standing up for freedom of speech when they benefit from amplifying the junk.
If you’re controlling and benefiting—even modestly—from what people see, then you have power, and that means you bear responsibility. This means Facebook is acting more like a publisher than a neutral public utility.
As long as Facebook remains in control of the discovery and amplification algorithms, then I believe Facebook can—and should—have reasonably high standards for upholding truth and decency on their platforms. Facebook should not allow itself to be hijacked or manipulated to spread or amplify hate and lies.
To me, none of this would conflict with individuals right to freedom of speech. I believe you should be able to stand in the public commons (open internet) and yell whatever you want (personal website), but the moment you come in to this community building (Facebook) you should be accountable the rules.
Put more simply, my view is:
- If you can think it you should be allowed to say it.
- If you can say it you should be allowed to record it.
- If you can record it you should be allowed to share it.
- Even if you can share it you should have no guarantee anyone will hear it.
One way I think Facebook could solve this dilemma would be to provide a public API or open source the newsfeed algorithm. They could allow any individual or third-party to completely customize the curation of what they see. At least then the control—and responsibility—would rest with the people. In that scenario if people still want to consume junk, then at least it’s their choice and their responsibility.
Closing thoughts
As uncomfortable as recent years have been, I still believe that technology and Facebook have done more good than harm. Technology is largely responsible for our ability to see more clearly the injustices in our society, and has given us the tools to coordinate to try and fix them. Without cellphones with cameras, and internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, it would be much easier for the authorities to avoid accountability.
Technology has forced some of these long-simmering social problems to the surface, and that is ultimately a good thing even if it’s temporarily painful. I think of it like this: Society has an illness, and we’re raising the temperature to create a fever to try and kill the virus. To me that seems highly preferable compared to living with a chronic condition—or worse. Let’s all keep doing what we need to do to be healthier—individually and as a society.
Something else I frequently think about is that in the grand scheme of human history we’re still in very early days of having this many people connected to each other. It’s going to take awhile for us to find the right balance. I’m optimistic we can find that balance, and come out better and healthier for it. For my part, I know that the internet has made me a much more open and tolerant person.
Thank you for reading this far. My head has been spinning while thinking about all of this over the past week. It’s like a game of whack-a-mole, where each question just brings up another question. There are only a few things I’m confident of: 1. There are edge-cases and issues I overlooked or don’t fully understand or appreciate. 2. My point of view will continue to evolve as I learn and think about this more. 3. That we all need to demand better of our society, and work together to achieve it.
I’ve said it numerous times in the past, but I’m sympathetic to the position Mark is in. He could check-out and live a life of luxury anywhere he wants, but he’s still here thinking about these issues. Maybe it’s too much for one person, but I’m confident he’s trying to make good decisions. To me, that’s commendable. He is not perfect, no human is, but I’m glad it’s someone like him who I know takes these problems seriously.
I’m also very glad we have platforms like Facebook that we can use to criticize and debate the role platforms like Facebook should play in our society.
—Ben Barry
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Samuel, Andrew, Mark, Jon, Bobby, Marvin, and Ryan for their writing, speeches, and conversations that have informed my point of view.