![]() This is a choice ultimately sanctioned by the editor – Zuckerberg. Of course the algorithms, a set of rules made by humans, do not have to work this way. Algorithms that primarily make sure users are being fed more of what they like – and less of what they don’t like – are convenient when you are watching Netflix but are a questionable principle for the free flow of information in a democracy. Algorithms can be a smart, efficient and reliable way to order content, but they may also carry more troubling effects. Zuckerberg mainly exerts his editorial responsibility by means of advanced algorithms that control what information we get to see and what we don’t. His influence is greater than all the Rupert Murdochs of this world could dream about. Zuckerberg is de facto the most powerful editor-in-chief on the globe. This makes Facebook, if not a media company, then definitely a gatekeeper for all media companies in the world.Īn increasing part of the population states that Facebook is their main deliverer of information about what is going on in the world. Even if not all media companies publish directly on Facebook, this is where their users share, engage with the content, and discuss it. To the extent that those billion visit other websites, they often do so via a link from Facebook. More than 1 billion people use it every day. To an increasing number of people, Facebook is tantamount to the internet. ![]() Facebook may not be a media company, but on the other hand it is not just a neutral platform, as the censoring of The Terror of War clearly shows. ![]() Facebook does not want to be conceived as a media company, only as a technology platform. This brings me to my third and most important objective – to make Mark Zuckerberg personally engage in this issue. This company in turn will tell the press to quote “a spokesperson for Facebook”. Here in Scandinavia, Facebook has even gone so far as to leave it to a Swedish PR company to answer inquiries from the media. Yes, they distribute written statements, which are dutifully read out by news anchors at the end of reports, but real participation is more the exception than the rule. Most conspicuous, however, is the deafening silence from Facebook. We succeeded in this as well, and I am pleased to see that the debate was international. My second objective was to encourage debate on Facebook’s ever more powerful role as the world’s most important distributor of news and content. It just made Facebook see what everybody else is seeing: this picture is a documentation of the horrors of war – not nudity. We did – but our victory was only symbolic. First and foremost, Aftenposten wanted to stop Facebook’s censorship of the documentary photo The Terror of War.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |