Facebook vs. The World

2020 was not a great year for Facebook. Despite the user time on the platform being at record highs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tech giant was under considerable scrutiny. From Congressional hearings that began in 2019 to last year’s documentary The Social Dilemma, it seemed as though Mark Zuckerberg’s empire was hitting snags left and right. At the crux of the controversy was public and political concern for rampant misinformation, election interference, proliferation of fake news and the rise of hate groups on the platform while Facebook touted sky-high profit. 

Despite Facebook’s arguments that it’s taking steps to cut down on the spread of false information, this problem has persisted. In fact, The Guardian reported recently that Facebook is still hosting no less than 430 pages—followed by 45 million users—with false information regarding COVID-19 and subsequent vaccination efforts. This problem remained consistent across Instagram, the photo sharing app also owned by Facebook, which also fed users misleading or incorrect information regarding COVID-19 in 2020.  

The truth is Facebook and its adjoining companies have no business interest in shutting down these hubs for inflammatory information, especially given that this content proves to be some of their most engaging. The construct of a social media algorithm is designed to feed you information that keeps you online—keeps you using the platform. As Facebook (and this goes just as much for YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Pinterest, lest you think I’m picking on Zuckerberg et al) feeds you content, it will double down on anything that captures your attention. Innocuously, that could be a love of gardening. More frighteningly, it could be a budding interest in white supremacy. As a user, you will begin to see more of that type of content. You will begin to see more users in your feed who share an interest in that topic. You will be recommended groups around that topic, too. 

This is not coincidence, though for users who are less discerning of the way Facebook has been architected, it may seem that way. It may feel like your personal opinion is actually a widely shared world view. But in reality FB is digitally magnifying a small portion of a population—which in effect drowns out other voices that are neutral or in opposition. This is essentially how extreme views get cultivated; and it doesn’t happen all at once, it happens as a slow drip. And because FB wants you to stay online, they have architected a way for you to feel connected to a reality they, or rather the algorithm, fabricated for you.

But why? Simply, when you stay online, they have more of your data to sell to advertisers and the platform can make more money. Facebook is not tied to the ethical implications of what keeps you online, and certainly doesn’t care about the veracity of those topics. It just wants you interested and hitting that “like” button. 

Apple, sensing the tides changing in user sentiment and wanting to ensure its users at least feel more in control of their data, announced that iOS 14 will require app developers like Facebook to show users a pop-up asking for permission to “track you across apps and websites.” To put it lightly, Facebook had a meltdown. Facebook put our several PR-approved announcements about how the Apple updates are bad for businesses and then recently proceeded to roll out pop-ups of its own, which unwittingly encourage users to opt-in to a “better ads experience,” aka sign over their data, before they could experience the Apple pop-ups post-update.

On its face, Facebook’s initial assertion that the new Apple update is bad for business is not totally unfounded—but Facebook did not then turn the accusation around to criticize its own infrastructure. An infrastructure that has bled data from users for years to sell it, backed by an algorithm that creates toxic ecosystems and breeds harassment, radicalization and misinformation. All while being utterly necessary for business who have lost in-person customer experiences to a global pandemic. 

Quite the conundrum—and one that has not gone on to bear much fruit, according to insiders who say that small business has been largely unaffected by the recent changes. 

As the Digital Creative Manager here at Black Sheep, I’ve been invested in watching how Facebook responds to these clear and systemic issues with the platform, partly because that’s a fundamental component of my job. We guide clients through brand awareness, follower growth and conversion exercises—while also carrying an expertise that encourages our clients to be discerning about where they spend their ad budget, and why.

I’m also curious in nature. And I would like to reclaim a world without Facebook. Bold words from someone who has crafted an entire career trajectory on digital spaces, but indulge me for a moment. 

I deleted my Facebook for good in 2017 after years of temporarily deleting, and then restoring it—unable at the time to cut the cord entirely. I endured personal harassment on Facebook more than a dozen times in my nearly 11 years on the platform, and as my career began to intertwine with social media, I felt constricted by the platform’s power to dictate my waking hours, and fundamentally, my mental health.  (If you want to dig further into social media management, ethics and mental health, let me recommend starting here.) I don’t miss it, not even a little bit. But I understand why others have been hesitant, even outright opposed, to doing the same.

I’m not one to propose a problem without a solution. Taking a step back, Facebook did for local news what Amazon did for bookstores: put them out of business only to adopt the business model as their own, and try and throw a bone to the remaining businesses as an act of solidarity. But as digital marketers, we have the chance to sidestep the tech giant and return to more traditional media buys, not only for ethical reason, but because it’s a strong business strategy. 

In the Nielsen Total Audience Report, published in August 2020, it was cited that 64% of all streamed news content from work-from-home employees was local news. People were not only streaming local news but listening to local podcasts and checking our local radio shows. Quoting the report, a major factor as to why so many Americans were looking to local stations for information was trust. People want unbiased, corroborated information about public health developments, unlike the minefield of personal opinions housed on Facebook. The study claims that people wanted to feel like a part of a community. And considering our mission at Black Sheep, that stuck out to me most prominently. 

So yes, Facebook gives us almost-unfettered access and vibrant dopamine rushes. But it is not a replacement for community. To be truly invested in a community is to resolve conflict, not stoke it. Being part of an authentic community comes with an inherent responsibility to maintain ethics and standards that include everyone’s voice, but not at the expense of putting people (and their privacy) at risk. 

In the end, it is truly your choice on how you engage with the platform. All that I ask is that you consider what your idea of safe community means in the digital space. You can choose to be on Facebook—or completely abandon it altogether—but at least know what you’re signing up for.