Living through a global pandemic in the era of personalized news feeds and an increasingly polarized political environment emphasizes an underlying issue: the deliberate and systematic dissemination of false information.
While this is not a novel problem in the history of humanity, the global adoption of social media — with personalized news feeds driven by algorithms — as a major way in which we consume information has increased the dangers accompanying confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is perpetuated by internet bubbles, the ways in which the platforms of multinational corporations — Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter — create echo chambers by structuring our feeds to conform to our pre-existing ideas. These platforms have figured out that this is a great way to keep users hooked so they can sell more advertisements.
Essentially, if Twitter — through the people I follow and the content I tweet about — figured out that I am a young, cosmopolitan university student, then anything the site suggests will likely conform to trends that are typically well-received by my demographic. For any kind of content outside of my own biases to make it past my bubble, it has to be extreme, controversial, or driven by clickbait. This is dangerous because our preconceived ideas become entrenched in our personal identities and we are not receptive to opposing points of view.
Despite the dangers associated with only seeing content that confirms pre-existing beliefs, whenever the possibility of making social media platforms accountable for disinformation is brought forward, social media companies will often justify their actions by framing it as a freedom of expression issue. In 2019, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued free speech — including disinformation — is a constitutionally protected right and that social media companies are merely providing a platform for their users. Whatever the user might disseminate or takeaway from online platforms is not the company’s responsibility.
However, anyone with a basic understanding of constitutional law will tell you Zuckerberg’s arguments have little ground. Constitutional protections are intended for individuals’ rights from the government — not multinational corporations. There is also a fundamental precedent in both Canadian and American law that no right is absolute; if justified, all rights can be limited. This principle is often described colloquially as: even though you have the right to express yourself freely, you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre because the danger you put others in takes precedence over your freedom to express yourself.
This same principle can — and should — be applied to all of these social media companies, particularly Facebook, which is the biggest of these platforms. More specifically, perhaps these social media companies should be held to the same journalistic and editorial standards that are in place for mainstream media. It is way past time for democratic governments around the world to impose some accountability and responsibility onto these companies that are, let’s not forget, amassing large profits off of the engagement they receive from the various disinformation campaigns on their platforms.
Ultimately, this disinformation crisis is the product of cable news networks and social media platforms which have vested financial interests in the confrontational, clickbait-culture of news. When virality is a far more important measurement of success than objectivity, that is where we see a failure in the marketplace of ideas.
It’s important to note I am not arguing that everyone needs to agree on everything, or that if everyone agreed with my positions we’d all be better off, or that we should entirely stop using social media as a source for news and information.
I am instead pointing out the dangers of the current global information crisis. The echo chambers of personalized internet bubbles have brought us to a place where we not only disagree on the opinions of an issue, but also on the facts. A healthy democracy should have fierce disagreements — but they should be centred around a common set of facts.
Although the solutions to these problems will require structural reform, my proposals to limit some of these problems include normalizing a culture of ‘I don’t know enough about this topic to comment on it,’ diversifying the sources of our news, and being more open-minded and less fearful of a culture of compromise. It is possible to disagree with reasonable people politically and still respect their sincerity, intellect, and humanity.
Featured graphic by Jillian Piper.
