Social media should share vetted news
The Hamas-Israel conflict is unfolding after social media developers spent the summer trying to replace X (formerly Twitter).
It might seem like the near-comical rush to be the next big virtual gathering space has nothing to do with a violent crisis that has significant geopolitical consequences. But in an era where 5 billion people worldwide turn to apps such as X, Facebook, Instagram and Threads to stay informed during breaking news, the virtual world is intrinsically linked to the real one.
Yet none of the tech giants can provide an essential service needed by all: access to accurate news. They are either busy helping to spread misinformation or don’t think it’s their responsibility to create a platform where vetted news can reach followers.
In a Thread last week, Instagram’s Adam Mosseri said: “We’re not anti-news. News is clearly already on Threads. People can share news; people can follow accounts that share news. … But, we’re also not going to amplify news on the platform. To do so would be too risky given the maturity of the platform, the downsides of over-promising, and the stakes.”
Mosseri seemed to be doubling down on a viewpoint Zuckerberg shared in September when he explained that hard news and conversations around it no longer align with Meta’s business model. If that’s the stance social media leaders want to take in 2023, when the prevalence of Internet culture demands that these platforms be not only technological outlets but publishers, then so be it. But it is frustrating to watch the companies that effectively blew up the traditional news circulation model walk away from a mess of their creation.
If Meta and X bosses don’t want to act responsibly as stewards of that reality, then the latest social media developers should not use them as a blueprint. They should follow new paths, the same ones legacy media once walked. This includes making the tenets of journalism, such as seeking truth and putting it into context, maintaining independence and holding the powerful accountable, a part of their business model.
The traditional press is certainly not perfect. It has a long way to go regarding equity in its hiring and news coverage. And even the most celebrated legacy media outlets routinely warrant criticism of their implicit and explicit biases. There are some— Fox News comes to mind—that are guilty of spreading misinformation and disinformation.
But when it does what it is intended to do, traditional media can be a powerful verification tool, allowing us to witness important events in real time and help create a shared experience.
We don’t turn on our televisions or open news apps on our phones and find ourselves routinely inundated with misleading information. The same can’t be said for social media. In the hours and days following Hamas’ attack, posts and videos with false information, including one from a video game, were viewed millions of times on X. And there are times when accurate information is wrongly flagged as false or misleading.
In its current state, social media has only led to more ignorance, confusion, and more dehumanization of the people trying to live through this latest conflict. No matter who says otherwise, it should not be considered hopeless or unreasonable to expect someone to build a digital public square that will take this power seriously and transform it into something that could be used for good.