Open Facebook, close mind
Facebook and the other tech giants must urgently transform their algorithms to broaden political debate
The controversy over the collecting of data on millions of people through Facebook may be a welcome turning point in the apparently irresistible rise of the giant tech companies. By last week, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, was belatedly apologising while his share price sank, and Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, was calling for “well-crafted regulation” of the industry.
The arguments and proposals that have emerged are all about how to protect privacy. At last, Facebook and its ilk are waking up to the dangers of passing on a mass of information about their users. This has come on top of huge and justified pressure on social media companies to stop the spread of hatred and criminality on their sites.
It’s clear that a wave of law and regulation is about to catch up with Facebook, Twitter and Google. And so is the taxman — with seven countries looking at new ways of getting a fair share from what have become the biggest companies on earth.
The brilliant people who run these companies could have got ahead of all this and reformed themselves if they had thought about these issues early enough. They should think about what’s next and anticipate it. Because this is bigger even than the passing on of personal data. It is the role of social media in an alarming trend: the narrowing of the human mind.
Since its inception, the internet has had the potential to open up our thinking and knowledge. It gave us instant access to ideas from everywhere and the entire span of human learning. There will be many benefits of that, not least in scientific and medical advances.
Yet it is hard to identify anywhere at the moment where public debate is becoming more tolerant, more understanding of others’ viewpoints, and more widely informed about alternatives. Across Europe and the US, politics is becoming more polarised between extremes.
The average MP has to endure more foul abuse on social media than in the past. And globally, authoritarianism is on the rise.
It doesn’t help that the world of the tech companies is designed to keep you hooked and give you a lot more of what you already want.
Once this becomes the method of spreading political ideas and information there is a problem. A healthy democracy is not the majority getting what it wants; yes, it involves the majority getting its way, but only with respect for the interests of the minority.
It is of fundamental importance to the future of a free society that contrasting views about parties, elections and governments are put in front of us. Now that social media has become one of the main means by which people get information — 67% of American adults receive their news via Facebook, according to one survey — it is must be put right.
The furore over the Leave campaign in the UK, and the diversion of much of the campaign spending of its political parties on Facebook in recent elections, show how important this has become. But because the companies want you to be addicted, so they can harvest your data, they present you with views and material that reinforce the views you already hold.
Recent evidence has shown that watching political videos on YouTube leads to being offered more radical and extreme material, whether of the left or right. An environment has developed in which people are more likely to believe in ludicrous conspiracies or “fake news” because they don’t hear the evidence against it. The million or so Americans who read “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President” on the satirical website WTOE 5 News did not generally also see something like “Pope Dismisses Such Utter Tosh”.
It is a psychological truth that we are all subject to “confirmation bias” — believing things that support our existing opinions. For many millions of people their main means of learning about the world is now set up to exacerbate that bias rather than counter it. That is the road to intolerance, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.
So what should be done? Of course, we can as individuals make sure that we read a variety of excellent newspapers and listen to balanced radio shows. But most people won’t. Better still, the bosses of social media could announce they understand this and are taking action.
In future, instead of just giving you, say, five more things you will immediately agree with, they could give you four such things and one of an opposite viewpoint. They could even have a section highlighted for their users of “Here are some alternative views” or, put more bluntly, “Here is something you won’t like but that might be good for your brain”.
Probably they will not do this — in which case we should come out and say that these sites are now media companies which should be regulated. We would apply a version of those rules to social media, including a total ban on political advertising and a requirement for contrasting views and rebuttals to be shown together in whatever way possible. And the algorithms by which they decide what to show people would have to be published.
Zuckerberg and others might be horrified. But they would be wise to take their own action to make rules of this kind unnecessary. For people who are so clever at seeing and shaping the trends of the future, it would be encouraging if they could see this one coming.
So what should be done? We can make sure we read a variety of excellent newspapers. But most people won’t William Hague British Conservative Party politician