Sucker bird

In big news, Facebook/Meta has announced that it will stop fact-checking posts on its site.

In response, memes have sprouted on social media, including Facebook itself, announcing all sorts of ridiculous stuff like: Facebook founder Zuckerberg is dead, that he received the first rat penis transplant, and that his wife Priscilla is the envy of millions of women because she was lucky to have married a mega-billionaire without the guts to stand up to Donald Trump (I totally made the last one up).

But Meta’s announcement, too, needs fact checking.

It’s not like anyone can post just anything, moving forward. Meta says it will still “tackle” illegal and “high severity” violations, such as terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, frauds, and scams. That probably means it will continue the practice of taking down the highly severe post, or outright banning the post. Less-severe policy violations, Meta announces, will need to be reported by a complainer before Meta does anything about it.

That doesn’t sound too alarming, right? So what’s the fuss about?

What’s triggering the anxiety of pundits is the bits of the announced new policy that Meta will stop relying on independent third-party checkers. Also the bit where Meta won’t focus on really controversial topics like gender and immigration. And the bit where to diminish biases, Meta will move its teams to Texas, where they can be rid of California’s pervasive policing. (Huh?)

But Meta says it will continue its own policing. It will continue to monitor harmful content, but Zuckerberg says Meta would really rather promote free speech rather than act as censors. So no more third-party censors. That’s going to be stopped. And as the New York Times blared in its headline, the new fact checker will be none other than: you!

Yes, complainers, whiners, and other concerned citizens. You all need to get off your butts and do your civic duty of reporting fake news. Otherwise, Facebook will just be a wasteland of false information and triggering posts. Because ultimately, this is what Facebook wants. It wants its users triggered, enraged, stressed, hyperventilating, liking, commenting, sharing, and emoting. All of these are indicators of engagement, and at the end of the day, engagement drives revenues.

Advertisers pay Meta based on the amount of engagement. And natch, Meta’s main purpose for existing is not to promote free speech or other constitutional rights. It’s not to make people happy or make them feel good. It’s to make lots of money. Now that that’s settled, the best solution to this overarching threat of a misinformed citizenry is to treat it the way other businesses are treated: by regulating its ability to do business.

Brazil, for instance, has summoned Meta to explain just how their new policies are going to work. Seventy two hours to explain, or else. Actually, it’s unclear what the “or else” will be, so perhaps Meta will just blow Brazil off, much like what Twitter/X did to its own Brazilian cases.

Not that Twitter’s strategy was effective, because as Elon Musk learned the hard way, first, Twitter was slapped a suspension from being able to do business in Brazil, and then a mega-millions fine, which it had no choice but to pay. So if Zuckerberg is paying attention, he may just want to note that doing nothing about misinformation is costly.

On our side of the ocean, we could likewise impose standards upon Facebook to make sure that what’s carried in its site are rigorously fact-checked. Sure, we have cyber-liber laws, but if the posts aren’t elevated to the levels of a crime, then Facebook will not be legally incentivized to voluntarily cleanse itself.

So some pressure might come in handy? Like, regulations mandating that Meta cannot allow ugly selfies with bad lighting and terrible outfits? Or, prohibiting posts by politicians claiming to be working for the good of the poor people when all they’ve done is accept kickbacks and steal billions from government coffers? Or maybe, snubbing socialites posting their lavish lifestyles and luxury handbags while a kilometer from them, there are beggars and a scarcity of affordable food?

All right, that’s dreaming too much. But you get the point. We can and should draw bright lines on what is and isn’t acceptable on social media, and not just allow socmed companies to ravage our souls in the name of reaping profits from our guts. We have self-determination, and now would be a good time to exercise it.

And preferably before Meta starts spewing the noise that I use chat bot AI to generate my columns.