A significant issue concern is the role Facebook plays in spreading false political information. With the emergence of social media platforms such as Facebook, the difference between the truth and a lie on the internet has turned out to be more blurred. Social media, polarization, different sources, and political lenses are all involved, al5rhough to what extent, the world can only guess. Nevertheless, if it is known that a social media platform is continuously spreading false information, it is in the best interest of democracy and the general public to stop. Nevertheless, the topic for this paper is “Why Facebook should not be held accountable for fake political information.” The topic is essential because it takes a stance on the reasons why spreading of false political information should not be entirely blamed on Facebook, as it is only a tool that people use to post their essential, and it is the responsibility of those posting the political news to ensure it is accurate and factual. It is difficult to ascertain whether given information posted on Facebook is true or false. Therefore, Facebook should not be blamed for the spread of fake political information.
Summary of the Topic
There are two articles which will be used for this discussion: “Facebook doubles down on letting politicians lie in ads” and “Facebook Says It Won’t Back down from Allowing Lies in Political Ads” In the first article, the author of the article argues that Facebook believes that private firms should make political ads decisions. The authors present the new policy that Facebook introduced to allow users have more control over the political advertisements on the platform. In the second article, the authors state that Facebook is not bowing down to pressure from Congress to change its policies on political ads. Instead, Facebook maintains its position that it will continue allowing political campaigns to utilize the platform for targeting ads to specific populations of the voters and that it will not monitor the truth of the messages shared. Nonetheless, the stance put the social network at odds with some of the other big technology firms that have started putting new restrictions on political ads.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The argument presented by the writers of the two articles is the extent to which Facebook should restrict political content to be shared across its platform. The writers argue that Facebook is trying to implement new policies on political ads, to ensure that users have more control of political information they come across on its platform, and they can choose to read or ignore it. Since there are no government regulations in place on what type of political content should be shared on social networks, Facebook points out that the company is left to design its own policies.
The authors of the articles want the audience to know why Facebook and other social networks should not be held accountable for the false political content that is shared across such platforms because there are no government regulations that regulate the type of political information that should be sent in these sites. Thus, the writers want the audience to be careful when it comes to the political ads, and not to simply blame Facebook for allowing such content, but blame their political leaders who are sharing such false political information.
Rhetorical Appeals Analysis
To persuade the audience to believe that Facebook should not be responsible for the false political information, the authors of the two articles have used rhetorical appeals, specifically, logos and pathos. Primarily, the authors have used logos extensively in their arguments. To reinforce their argument, the authors have used facts by quoting different people. For example, in supporting the new policy by Facebook on allowing users to have more control over the political advertisements on the platform, the authors quote Facebook Director of Product Management Rob Leathern, who defended the company’s decision by saying that:
"In the absence of regulation, Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies," Leathern said in the post. "We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public" ( Mihalcik & Morse, 2020).
Further, the authors also use pathos to convince the audience. A good example of pathos is when the authors back up Facebook’s stance to continue allowing political campaigns to use the website for targeting ads to particular electorate populations and its decision not to monitor the truth of the messages being sent out. The authors state that:
“ Political advertising cuts to the heart of Facebook’s outsize role in society, and the company has found itself squeezed between liberal critics, who want it to do a better job of policing its various social media platforms, and conservatives, who say their views are being unfairly muzzled” ( Isaac & Kang, 2020).
This appeal tries to show how Facebook has been put into a tight spot over the issue of political ads and the spread of fake information. One can only sympathize with the company for being in such a situation.
Another instance where the authors use pathos is when they say, “By maintaining a status quo, Facebook executives are essentially saying they are doing the best they can without government guidance and see little benefit to the company or the public in changing” ( Isaac & Kang, 2020). This statement creates an emotional response where the readers feel that Facebook is doing more in the interest of the general public, even without government regulations on the spread of political content on the site. Logos are appeals that have been used most effectively by the authors because they present facts from various critical individuals on Facebook and US politics. Therefore, the impact of the logos on the argument is that they make it more credible and reliable because much of the information is quoted from reliable sources.
Counterargument
The opposing argument to the argument that Facebook must not be held accountable to false political news is that Facebook ought to be held responsible. Facebook’s stance is to continue allowing political campaigns to utilize the site to target ads to specific electorate populations. Conversely, although micro-targeting is terrifying, its principal concern is the deliberate spread of false information ( Romm, Stanley-Becker & Timberg, 2020). While Facebook is not the only site that spreads fake news, it is frequently the tool used by politicians who want to. Facebook should be responsible for ensuring that politicians do not go about spreading false information by censoring fake ads. In his speech at Georgetown, Zuckerberg stated that Facebook is fundamentally a microphone for the people to share all various forms of opinions – but an unsubstantiated claim and an opinion differ significantly ( Boulier, 2019) . Opinions do not involve false information. Instead, they are simply a perspective based on situational facts and one’s background.
The argument that Facebook must be held responsible is incomplete because Facebook’s policies on fake ads are in the best interest of the freedom of speech. However, this freedom should have its limits. Nonetheless, the counterargument is illogical because it is hard to ascertain whether a political ad is correct or false. After all, at times, it is difficult to differentiate between opinions and claims. The original argument is stronger as it uses pathos and logos to persuade the audience, which makes it more substantiated and credible. The use of a counterargument makes my analysis stronger as it offers a different perspective from that of the authors of the two articles, and thus gives a better understanding of the topic.
References
Boulier, A. (2019, October 23). Opinion | Facebook Should Be Held Responsible for Fake News . The Breeze. https://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/opinion-facebook-should-be-held-responsible-for-fake-news/article_bd2da86c-f5ba-11e9-b234-4fac9c5ef96b.html
Isaac, M., & Kang, C. (2020, January 9). Facebook Says It Won’t Back Down From Allowing Lies in Political Ads . The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/technology/facebook-political-ads-lies.html%20here%20are%20the%20sources%20on%20which%20i%20will%20be%20writing%20my%20articles
Mihalcik, C., & Morse, A. (2020, January 9). Facebook continues to let politicians lie in ads as we head into the 2020 election . https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-doubles-down-on-letting-politicians-lie-in-ads/
Romm, T., Stanley-Becker, I., & Timberg, C. (2020, January 9). Facebook won’t limit political ad targeting or stop false claims under new ad rules . Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/09/facebook-wont-limit-political-ad-targeting-or-stop-pols-lying/
