FAKE NEWS IS NOT BIG TECH’S PROBLEM

As a young college journalist, the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, in particular, the right to a free press, means a lot to me. I understand the media has gotten plenty of backlash the past few years for not exercising the profession in an honest manner (and for many outlets deservingly so). However, the need for a free press is more important than any other time in history. With the rise of the novel coronavirus, a social justice movement, and the 2020 election, the media is playing a bigger role in informing the public than ever before. And now, social media is the messenger of choice for the press.

​

This completely changes the dynamic the media gets their stories out to their readers and viewers. For centuries the printing press was the only way news organizations distributed their message to the public. This system worked well with their being no other party other than the news outlet and the person receiving the outlet’s report in the process. All newspapers had to do was just stick a 13 year-old out on the street and tell him to scream in a Brooklyn accent, “Extra! Extra! Read all about it!”

​

Yet, today with the monopoly big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook have on the public’s attention, this two party relationship has changed. Now, these social networks act as an intermediary who help the media distribute their messages. This three party dynamic does not contradict democracy by itself, as long as social media platforms abide by Section 230, also known as the Communication Decency Act (CDA).

​

The main purpose of the act is to allow internet companies to host content and not be liable for the content itself (as long as the content is not illegal or promoting illegal activity). Basically, the CDA states social media companies are like bookstores who hold vast amounts of information they themselves don’t produce or are liable for. This is opposite of a newspaper who edits and is liable for the content they produce.

​

The CDA has been one of the biggest factors for social media’s rise to prominence considering, without Section 230, companies like Twitter and Facebook would be hesitant to allow billions of users freedom to post whatever content they want in fear of being sued for the users' content. With these platforms abstaining from liability, it has allowed for the free information highway we see today on the internet.

​

However, Twitter and Facebook’s response to the Oct. 14  New York Post’s story releasing newly discovered emails found on an abandoned laptop of Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, exhibiting proof Hunter scheduled a meeting between a Ukranian businessmen, who worked with Hunter Biden at the time, and his father. This is something Joe Biden has repeatedly denied ever happened over the course of his campaign.

​

The action taken by the social media giants towards this story is completely contradictory to the role Section 230 states internet companies play. In essence, the response by these companies do not make them platforms for information, but regulators and editors of information.

​

Twitter’s reaction included banning the posting and sharing of the Post’s story on the platform. Twitter even shut down accounts that tried to share the story, such as White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Initially, Twitter did not inform users of their reasoning as to why the story was taken down from the platform. Not until hours after the banning Twitter explained its reasoning for the restrictions when Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, said the post contained “hacked materials” and “contained private information.” 

​

Which, to be fair, was true. The New York Post tabloid’s story still has unexplained origins and included personal email addresses and photos of Hunter Biden. However, where was this policy when the New York Times broke a bombshell story revealing President Donald Trump’s tax returns? The Times’ still has yet to reveal its source to where they obtained Trump’s taxes and not to mention, someone’s taxes are private information! In addition, Edward Snowden’s information that was hacked from the CIA didn’t get taken down. Undoubtedly, this policy was likely applied biasly towards the New York Post story for political reasons.

​

I am not saying the Post’s story has definite proof or isn’t sketchy. But I am also not going to sit here and act like journalists do not publish stories with personal information and unexplained sources/hacked material all the time. Also, the story still has not been proven entirely false, despite the Biden campaign stating that the Vice President never had an official meeting scheduled with the Ukrainian businessman the story speaks of. 

​

Facebook, on the other hand, took a slightly less outrageous, but still biased, approach towards the Post’s story. The platform decided the tabloid’s story could potentially be misinformation and so it had the story’s spread slowed until Facebook’s third-party fact checkers confirmed the information. This is a better approach than Twitter, but still biased and unexplained action towards its users.

Twitter, after facing backlash for the censoring, has now allowed the New York Post story to be shared on its platform acknowledging their ban of the post was not justified. This is a step in the right direction. 

​

Although, we just witnessed the limitless power both these companies have. If Twitter and Facebook wanted to, they could limit the speech of news organizations they disagree with and accelerate ones they admired. Essentially, a few guys in Silicon Valley could form an entire country’s opinion.

​

Isn’t it the job of the public to form their own opinions? Isn’t the essence of journalism to gain credibility by reporting the truth? Why should Twitter or Facebook, who claim to be platforms under the CDA, regulate what they believe to be truthful and credible reporting? Shouldn’t that be the job of the American people?

​

At the same time, misinformation and fake news is definitely a problem in this country. However, I believe the solution to this problem is not censoring disinformation, but teaching the public how to identify invalid reporting.

This means teaching people the significance of confirmation bias, spotting a one sided view, noticing loaded wording, and ignorance/omittance.

​

This is the only way to combat fake news in a democratic fashion. Not to force what one or two companies believe to be valid down hundreds of millions of peoples throats; but to let the individual decide what is true with the right tools to pursue objectivity and validity, while disregarding bias and misinformation.

​

The problem is not within Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media platform for that matter. The problem is within ourselves as a society. We pursue information that confirms our own biases and are ignorant to the way the media and technology can shape a population’s opinion if enough people don’t have the proper tools.

​

Nothing exists without a market for it, which includes fake news. It’s time the public takes ownership for their bias and ignorance. It’s time for people to stop blaming business models that simply give customers what they want. It’s time for people to learn how to analyze the news and pursue real truth.