Now, Zuckerberg is not the greatest witness from an entertainment standpoint. He would start all his answers by addressing the questioner as "congressman" or "chairman", or whatever, which was so stilted and rehearsed as to put you to sleep, right before he avoided answering the question the best he could.
This got to be fun when the lefties on the committee quickly diverged from talking about cryptocurrency, which they don't understand, and started asking him about "fact checking", the idea that Facebook -- which, we have to note, is a social media platform, not a news organization -- should review all the content posted on it and "fact check" the content, particularly from politicians.
Facebook has over 2.2 billion (with a "b") regular users worldwide. Even if you restrict that to just the politicians, we can agree that determining the accuracy of what they post would be a herculean effort, and that's before we get to the notion that my assessment of the factual nature of a statement may not be the same as say, that of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
Yes, "fact-checking" is a fool's errand. My facts are not necessarily your facts, especially when the news media have allowed their editorial bias to infect their reporting. No one should claim primacy on what the facts actually are, especially in politics.
But the lefties on that panel were taking Zuckerberg to task for not doing fact-checking of political speech. And I have a world of problems with the notion that they should even think of doing so.
Facebook is a platform. The opinions of the 2.2 billion (with a "b") people who post are their own opinions, not Facebook's. Facebook is a thing, and things don't have opinions, people do, even when they answer robotically like Mark Zuckerberg.
That, in a nutshell is Reason #1 why I do not want Facebook to do any fact checking of anyone's postings, not the president's and not Maxine Waters's. Even though, I should add, I am not one of those 2.2 billion people (I don't use Facebook). Here are all the reasons:
1. Facts are not necessarily facts. Donald Trump famously said that the Mexicans were sending over the border "their rapists ...", which was often misquoted as referring to all Mexicans, as if he had said "they're rapists ...". With that New York accent of his, and the fact (yes, fact) that it was spoken and not written, I'm not sure what was actually said, except that I'm pretty sure he wasn't calling all Mexicans rapists, and so are Democrats, except that they won't admit it and keep spouting, as what they call a "fact", that he did.
2. Given #1, there would have to be an arbiter, and there is exactly zero in the makeup of Facebook that qualifies them to do so. They're a social media platform that sells advertising, and that does not qualify them to assign people to a role like that.
3. The pesky Constitution, although it only applies to this country, affords us freedom of speech. If I want to say that Barack Obama is a communist, or that he corruptly used the FBI illegally to spy on an opposing political campaign, I have the right to say it. If Facebook feels that what someone says crosses the line into criminality or libel, well then, call it to the attention of law enforcement -- but do not take it down yourselves.
4. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If your views are repugnant, airing them will convince us all of their repugnance. Censoring them will drive them underground, and underground is where the nutrients of the soil will make them grow. Get it?
5. If the airing of anything on Facebook causes someone else harm, the liability is, or at least should be, with the person who posted the content in the first place, not the medium by which it was delivered. We don't hold the US Postal Service liable when a threat is mailed. The moment we hold Facebook, or YouTube, or LinkedIn, or Instagram, or Twitter, liable for what someone co-opted their platform to say, they will cease to exist, and we will have corrupted the legal principle that assigns liability to the actual criminal. Facebook is not an accessory to that.
I think it is kind of ironic that the oligarchs in the Democrat Party are now somehow insisting that Facebook, of all things, should take to fact-checking and censoring content. There is no organization outside Moscow that spouts more non-factual propaganda than today's Democrats. Adam Schiff himself had to be given the "four Pinocchio" treatment by the far-left Washington Post, for doing just that in an Intelligence Committee hearing this month.
The only reason the left wants Facebook to be the nation's censor is that there, well, aren't any conservatives working there. YouTube and Twitter are already censoring conservative postings and we know it, while letting leftist and Islamist content slide right through. If Facebook were to fact check, you know which side would be advantaged. They'd love that.
Through the questioning, though, it seemed evident that Zuckerberg wanted no part of fact-checking his subscribers' words and advertisers' content. Even though he'd probably love to do that, it is clear that the cost of doing so would be huge, given the volume of input, with no revenue offset. Also, the legal liability would be enormous as well, given that they would be taking on a role that imputes decision-making authority to a public company. Zuckerberg wants no part of that.
For whatever reason he doesn't want to do it, I don't want him to either. I would like for people to be able to post their views freely, advertise whatever, and if there is a criminal problem or a civil conflict, well, refer the content to the authorities and let them handle it. Facebook should not take a single word down without a court order.
That's probably one of the more libertarian positions I've held over the years, but I have to hold it to be consistent with my views. I now, after all, have 1,025 columns online, and I'd be obliged if Google, who owns Blogger and whose leaders are surely diametrically opposed to almost everything I've written here, would just leave me and my words alone.
I don't need a fact checker, thank you. And neither does the USA.
Copyright 2019 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
Like what you read here? There are over 1,000 posts from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com, and after four years of writing a new one daily, he still posts thoughts once in a while as "visiting columns", no longer the "prolific essayist" he was through 2018, but still around. Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton
No comments:
Post a Comment