So-called “fake news” has been in the news recently –
whether in the “real news” or more supposed “fake news” sites – I’ll leave to
you to decide. On November 19, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted
his views on the subject. I commend Mr. Zuckerberg’s thoughtful post as
well worth a read.
Right now, in the post-election environment, passions on
behalf of some are running high, too high in some quarters. And when passions
run high, oftentimes there are pleas for action, even when the solutions offered
might be worse than the supposed ills.
Read Mr. Zuckerberg’s entire post, but here is a brief
excerpt that makes a lot of sense:
“The
problems here are complex, both technically and philosophically. We believe in
giving people a voice, which means erring on the side of letting people share
what they want whenever possible. We need to be careful not to discourage
sharing of opinions or to mistakenly restrict accurate content. We do not want
to be arbiters of truth ourselves, but instead rely on our community and
trusted third parties.”
Mr. Zuckerberg goes on to say
that “the percentage of misinformation is relatively small.” On this point,
it’s worth taking a look at A. Barton Hinkle’s November 23 post
at Reason, “The Fake News Epidemic of Fake
News.” Mr. Hinkle contends there are at least two problems with the
recent Buzzfeed story upon which so
much of the buzz surrounding “fake news” rests: “First, the epidemic of fake
news is overstated. Second, fake news is far from new.”
In any event, in his post,
Mr. Zuckerberg commendably outlines some measures Facebook itself is
considering to address the fake news issue. Several look promising, at least in
theory. You can decide for yourself.
But the main point is that to the extent “fake news” is a
serious problem at all, it should be left to the platforms themselves – and
interested private third parties – to address it, not the government.
As a matter of sound policy, the government should stay
out of the business of evaluating the truthfulness of news, except, for
example, in rare instances involving public health and safety. And as a matter
of law, the First Amendment’s free speech clause demands no less.
Posts
