4 ms·
The qualitative difference is that traditional news outlets are held accountable for their "fake news". The New York Times tries not to publish untrue claims, a
by Veen 9y ago
The qualitative difference is that traditional news outlets are held accountable for their "fake news". The New York Times tries not to publish untrue claims, and if it does, it will retract them and issue a correction or apology. If it won't do that, there are libel laws and other legal remedies.
Fake news on social media is subject to none of these controls. Facebook is a multiplier of some of the worst tendencies of human beings, and it lacks the institutions that the rest of society has evolved over centuries to contain those tendencies.
- cgmg 9y agoFacebook is not a publisher like the New York Times is, and it's very disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
- Veen 9y agoI don't think it matters really. If Facebook's current practices cause, enable, or magnify harm to society, then there are levers that should be pulled to minimize that harm. Facebook is, in part, a tool for distributing misleading information on a massive scale. We control tools that cause harm even if those tools are inert or even beneficial if they're not used by malicious people. Facebook has no institutional or economic reason to reduce the harm it causes, and it's the role of government to reduce harm when the market has failed to do so.