Facebook And its Ethical Failures

“To offer people the ability to create communities and get people closer together,” is said by the mission statement of Facebook. However, a deeper analysis of their fiscal policy uncovers that ripping people life apart is much more lucrative. Facebook revenues increase from the blowout of immoderation, hate speech, bullying, disinformation, conspiracy theory, and oratorical violence by creating filter sheets — social media algorithms are designed to increase the time you spend on their platform and, as a result, create bubbles where the most provocative content achieves the greatest prominence. The issue with Facebook’s isn’t one of technology but with their business model. Therefore, technological solutions have been failing to stop the flow of malicious content. The algorithmic outcomes are to be noticeably different if Facebook’s business model focused on providing people with correct information and various viewpoints, rather than tying people to highly engaging content within an echo chamber.
Facebook’s has failed to curb conspiracy theory, purposeful deception, political extremism and has been widely documented, especially when these nefarious forces have infiltrated conventional politics and established themselves in lethal, real-world violence. According to news reports of Famous Whistleblower Frances Haugen there were constant conflict of interest inside Facebook, between what is good for the public and what is good for Facebook and Facebook repeatedly shows to optimize itself for its own profitability. According to Facebooks own research which they had hidden from public shows that they were successful in acting against just 3–5% of hate. Another study shows that they could internally only tackle only ~0.6% of Violent crimes content despite being in the world at it. It goes to show that how little the world’s best can tackle. With access to all the resources and despite that kept optimizing their algorithm to make the most amount of money staking the users life and having such a deep effect on all our lives, and we could not even realize it. In another report of Facebook internal studies, it was revealed that they had testimony from so many of sources that misinformation, hate speech, acrimonious political speech and on Facebook and the host application it owns i.e., Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook itself are impacting lives of people from every corner of the world.
We live in an information environment filled of anger, nasty, and diverging content, our civic trust, faith in one another, and ability to support one another is eroded. The current form of Facebook is driving our civilizations apart and generating widespread ethical violence around the world. Like the Myanmar incident, in 2018, the military used Facebook to launch a Genocide. The root of Facebooks problems seems to concentrate in the change it made in its algorithm in 2018. The algorithms that determine what appears in your Facebook news feed and how you interact with it. We might see a hundred pieces of content if we use Facebook for 5 minutes, but Facebook has thousands of possibilities for us. The computer selects among those options based on the types of information you’ve previously engaged with. And one of the effects of Facebook’s current content selection strategy is that it prioritizes content that generates the most engagement or reactions from users. And, according to Facebook’s own research, hostile, controversial, and provocative information inspires individuals to get angry more easily than other emotions. And it is stuff like this that entices users to get addicted to the network. This occurred during the United States’ 2020 general election, when Facebook realized the stakes were high and activated the safer algorithm to limit the spread of misinformation. However, once the election was over, it was turned off in order to put growth ahead of safety. And to me, that seems like a violation of democracy. Facebook basically magnifies the worst aspects of human nature. This has been one of the consequences, but this does not mean that people are Facebook are malicious, but the motivations or incentives of the company are misaligned. Facebook generates more revenue. People prefer engaging with content that elicits an emotional response when they consume more content; the more anger they are exposed to, the more they participate. But it’s not just Facebook; there’s evidence of harm on Facebook’s Instagram as well. One of the internal studies looked at how Instagram affects adolescent girls and found that 13.5 percent of girls believe it makes suicidal thoughts worse, and 17 percent of young girls say insta makes their eating disorders much worse. What’s even more unfortunate is that, according to their own research, when these young ladies consume more and more of this stuff, they grow depressed, which encourages them to use the app more. Result of which, individuals get stuck in a feedback loop where they scorn their bodies more and more each time, they use Instagram. As per Facebook’s own research, Instagram is not just unsafe and damaging to teenagers, but it is also significantly worse than any other social media platform.
The whole economic model of Facebook is around growing user engagement and growth. Its algorithms are quite effective at what they do. Facebook’s initiatives are simply cosmetic and toothless, for ex. establishing filters like “AI chamber” and engaging with unbiased fact checkers. Because these are Facebook’s entire raison d’être, they can’t even begin to untangle the structural challenges at the foundation of the problem.
So, what are your choices? Without a doubt, criminality must be penalized. Executives who commit fraud should be imprisoned. Social media companies, as well as their executives, should be held accountable for the effects of the information which is posted on these platforms. One way to establish legal accountability in United States (US) is to reform Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act. It, as well as many similar laws around our world, should be modified to create many more significant answerability and culpability for the propagation of extremism, disinformation, violence and much more. Monopolies must first and foremost be broken up.
To break up the various Facebook acquisitions and constrain its future acquisitions and operations, antitrust laws should be used. The issues stated above have been brought to Facebook’s attention in a variety of methods, all of which are well-documented and easily verifiable. The changes that must be made, on the other hand, go far beyond the effective application of AI. Because it does not want to and is not incentivized to change, Facebook is unwilling to do so. Facebook’s leadership system is in serious need of some oversight and must be dismantled, and the company’s leadership structure is in dire need to be scrutinized. Despite the fact that it is unlikely that politicians and regulators will have the political will to do everything, there are some promising signs, particularly in antitrust probes and litigation in the US and Europe. Nonetheless, this is a much larger issue than merely upholding the law. We need to modify the encouragement for social media corporations that fight for and profit from our attention. It’s tough to see a way out of this position until we stop Facebook’s criminal behavior with lesser engagement. These businesses are working on technologies that will seduce us with harmful content, make us addicted to outrage, and eventually drive us apart. We no longer agree with each other on shared truths or realities, which is turning political opponents into acrimonious adversaries and ideological disagreements into blazing animosity. Rather than assisting us in leading more satisfying lives or discovering the truth, In the pursuit of profit, Facebook is making us foes among our own people and blasting us with reasons to hate them. This is a dangerous path to take. The only thing Facebook and its capitalist investors want is money, and the only way they generate money is through interaction. If we don’t participate, they lose money. If we eliminate them, they lose their control. If we refuse to be a part of their ecology, we might be able to return to a shared reality.