> they'd have to listen in on your private conversations. Facebook and Twitter? I'm not sure. So what does "private" mean? If I'm in a group restricted to only

> they'd have to listen in on your private conversations. Facebook and Twitter? I'm not sure. So what does "private" mean? If I'm in a group restricted to only people in my RL ski club (which I am), are our posts there not private as far as FB is concerned? Is there a numeric cutoff? A lot of groups spreading fake news on Facebook are nominally private in the exact same way, even though they have thousands of members and do almost nothing to vet new ones. Even humor groups are often private, which I just don't get. I agree that the "broadcast" nature of Facebook posts is probably significant, but I'm still not sure how to draw a useful line that would distinguish it from the thousands of forums that came before which weren't assigned this kind of moral responsibility. The Prison Planet forums on InfoWars still exist. Stormfront still exists. They do nothing but spew misinformation and hate. Any Facebook-specific accountability standard would be like endless Christmas for them. > certainly they would have budgeted more than a measly $100,000 They most certainly did. Orders of magnitude. That's only the amount for the external-fact-checker program, which is a tiny (and IMO not all that effective) slice of what they're doing. It doesn't count the thousands of people working on the problem internally, or the billions of machine-hours spent dismantling these "inauthentic content" networks. There are successes on that front almost every day, but everybody would rather focus of the fifth editorial about the third re-post of whatever the last bad news was.