According to "Fake news is just the beginning", Mark Zackerberg had eventually admitted that Facebook had affected the election's result by facilitating spreading of false news. From this instance, Wadhwa averred that technologies could ruin people's moral and the consequences were not easily predictable. He suggests that we be aware of these technologies' possible impacts on society and prevent them from going overboard.
_______________________________________
My responseIt surprised me when I was looking at this news. People used to claim that Facebook is a symbol of freedom of speech. The notion might be changed soon. I don' t think that it is appropriate. If Facebook had the right to censor the public opinion, freedom of speech would exist only in books. Instead of filtering public opinions, Zackerberg should provide information about "the fact" that the government want people to think it is the truth. Although fake news is bad for election result, it is hard to believe that half of Americans voted for Trump because of the fake news. In my opinion, the result of the election didn't come from the news on Facebook but from mistrust of current system.
Some have said that our life wouldn't have changed with a change in government. The current president-elect of the States has proved the argument. The stock market didn't plummet. Americans wouldn't be great again, based on my speculation. What has changed is only people in the White House. If Facebook changed its policy, we wouldn't be better off from the result of the election, but instead would be worse off from deprivation of freedom of speech.
Wadhwa has mentioned other technologies in his article and warned readers that an advancement in technology could be a catastrophe for humans. I concur with his view. It's necessary in considering drawbacks that the innovation could give to humans. However, sometimes this concern has caused an inefficiency in the society or even imparity in the society. For example, GMO produce's consequences haven't been confirmed; nevertheless, people are afraid of GMO produce and food's price keeps at a high level. The fear could sometimes forestall innovation.
_______________________________________
Reference
- Wadhwa, V. (2016, November 21). Fake news is just the beginning. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/11/21/fake-news-is-just-the-beginning/
Den raises to many interesting, and controversial, points I wasn't sure where to start responding.
ReplyDeleteFirst, since free speech is both a necessary condition for having an informed opinion of worth on any topic, but more importantly is required by democratic principle, it would be wrong to do anything that threatened free speech, and government interference would likely have that result. Prestigious publications such as The New York Times and quality universities such as Harvard would not have, and would not deserve, their respect if they were unable to publish any honestly held opinion, however offensive it is to a great majority of readers or to society in general. If we care for truth, as academics should, we must oppose any violation of free speech by governments.
The US, under its strong constitution, specifically the First Amendment, does very well in guaranteeing legal protection to extremely offensive opinions by some groups and individuals, for example the filthy anti-gay, racist, anti-Jew Westboro Baptist Church, who protest at the funerals of American soldiers killed serving their nation: even this disgusting speech must be protected. Naturally, US citizens can freely make fun and abuse their head of state. That is healthy.
Europe generally does OK, but is not as good as the US. Germany, for example, has laws that make it a crime to argue that the Nazi holocaust did not kill anything like six million Jews. The views of neo-Nazis are sick, false and extremely offensive, but German law is wrong to limit their freedom to peacefully state their opinions. German law undermines confidence in officially protected opinion about the Nazis evils because it does not allow opposing views to be presented and corrected: when false beliefs cannot be stated, they cannot be corrected, so fester. Worse, violating their right to state their opinions about Hitler and his murderous politics violates the basic democratic principle that all citizens have a right to an equal voice in determining the form of their government and their society. If this right is denied, then the state cannot justly expect its laws to be respected.