By recognizing that it hurts democracy, an admission with little precedent among tech firms, Facebook bolsters the case against itself for users and regulators
Sometimes, it's bad for democracy — In October, I started writing a daily newsletter about Facebook and democracy.
The VergeCasey Newton
Context & Ripple Effects
The admission lands a year after The Atlantic's [[a:923166|investigation into how Facebook eroded the informational underpinnings of the 2016 election]] and months after Zuckerberg began publicly rethinking the platform's claimed neutrality in favor of community values (New York Magazine). What changed with this piece is the posture: rather than disputing the premise, Facebook itself concedes that its product can hurt democracy — an acknowledgment with little precedent among major tech firms.
That concession matters because it hands ammunition to two audiences at once: users weighing trust in the platform, and regulators building cases against it. It also sets up the internal contradiction that plays out over the following years, as the company keeps making decisions — like allowing political ads that contain misinformation — that its own critics inside say flow from the business model itself.
First-order effects
Regulators and litigants gain a rare on-the-record concession from Facebook that its platform can harm democracy, shifting the debate from whether harm exists to what the company must do about it.
Users now have the company's own words against its trust messaging, raising the cost of Facebook's default 'platform is neutral' defense.
Second-order effects
The admission sharpens the split inside and around the company: by late 2019, a former head of Facebook's election integrity operations argues publicly that the business model and ad-targeting tools make democratic harm hard to avoid (Washington Post), turning the company's own alumni into witnesses for the case it bolstered.
Facebook's simultaneous defense of running political ads with misinformation shows the concession coexisting with unchanged revenue mechanics — forcing critics to argue the problem is structural, not a moderation lapse.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds — admissions followed by business-model continuity — scrutiny migrates from content moderation toward the underlying ad-targeting economics, the shift the former election integrity chief and later commentary calling for public cultural institutions both point toward.
A precedent forms for tech firms being held to statements about societal harm, where voluntary acknowledgments become exhibits in regulatory and user-trust cases rather than goodwill gestures.
The trend: Platform companies are being pushed from denying democratic harm to conceding it while leaving their engagement-and-ads machinery intact, moving the real fight from content moderation to business-model design.
As Facebook executives acknowledge social media can “spread misinformation and corrode democracy”, can they really ‘fix’ it & do they have the stomach to do so? Or will democracies need to look at policy interventions to ensure free & fair elections? http://washingtonpost.com/...
Politics & democracy are not just about government; the cultural opportunity for Facebook & other social networks to break our filter bubbles is an unprecedented opportunity for transformation toward empathy http://www.techmeme.com/...
Investor and former mentor of Zuckerberg's on Facebook's eternal problem: the “algorithm exists to maximize attention, and the best way to do that is to make people angry and afraid.” http://washingtonpost.com/...
And now the PM working on election integrity rolls back Schrage's “how could we possibly have known?” comment and gives a closer look at what FB is doing. http://newsroom.fb.com/...
2nd article on @Facebook Hard Questions series on social media & democracy is by @CassSunstein This is the 1st time they have commissioned articles. (Stay tuned for mine in next day or so ) http://newsroom.fb.com/...
Says Facebook's product manager about Russian propaganda: “This was a new kind of threat that was hard to predict, but we should have.” http://newsroom.fb.com/...
Fascinating to read this post about “making up for lost time” from @Facebook's Civic Engagement product manager. When I asked him related Q in June @aspenideas, he said he didn't have time for “people like me.” A lot happened over the last 6 mths I guess http://newsroom.fb.com/..…
Facebook said its platform being used by Russian trolls is a threat they couldn't easily predict. But. Ukraine says it approached Facebook with this problem in 2015. http://newsroom.fb.com/... http://www.ft.com/... http://twitter.com/...
The blog posts themselves — including one by @CassSunstein — are an honest, sober and fair assessment of both the promise of social media and its perils. Read them here: http://newsroom.fb.com/...
Series of 4 short essays on social media & democracy on @facebook Hard Questions page. 1st is by their head of civic engagement http://newsroom.fb.com/...
“even with all these countermeasures, the battle will never end” is maybe the most accurate sentence facebook has used to describe facebook in a while. http://newsroom.fb.com/... http://twitter.com/...
This FB blog post on social media & democracy starts with a flawed question. The correct question would be: What effect do social media platforms with business objectives like data collection, selling attention & maximizing engagement have on democracy? http://newsroom.fb.com/...
Facebook product manager: “At its worst, [social media] allows people to spread misinformation and corrode democracy. I wish I could guarantee that the positives are destined to outweigh the negatives, but I can't.” http://newsroom.fb.com/...
Lots to and quibble with here, but I'm glad Facebook's posture is changing from reflexive defensiveness to something slightly more introspective. http://newsroom.fb.com/...