What are your thoughts on social media fact-checking? Do you believe that Meta platforms have the right to protect us from untruth? Even if it is you spewing their deemed lies? Are you comfortable with them suppressing your views? Perhaps you don’t mind censorship thrust upon your rival political party, but what about on you?
Who gets to be the one who holds the measuring stick to truth?
J.Brough explores these ideas by showing how we are often unaware of the degrees of inappropriateness that never meet our eyes. Social media algorithms and fact-checkers must wade through seas of disbarring images such as sex abuse upon a child or beheadings. Shouldn’t we thank them for shielding us from graphic images and thoughts that would fill our minds with toxic sludge?
Brites, M. J., Castro, T. S., & Contreras-Pulido, P. highlight the changes in journalism through history and how, today, young people mix their views with the story shared, truth or not, ultimately controlling and participating in the narrative. Brites, M. J., Castro, T. S., & Contreras-Pulido, P. implore that with social media, there are no safe grounds to protect the vulnerable from misinformation. Social media opens the eyes of the world to different thoughts and cultures. Can we trust the ideas they share (2024)?
Hameleers, M., & van der Meer, T. G. L. A. detail how misinformation can polarize and influence politics. It regards fact-checking as a way to deliver trustworthy news and limit falsehoods, yet the truth is hard to define. Fact-checkers can change the message delivered and the audience receiving it. Hameleers, M., & van der Meer, T. G. L. A. ran a study that showed fact-checkers block ideas contrary to their views and stance. If this is the case, why would we want to give such power to a group of people with alternate views of the truth? Fact-checkers may have a bias that they want to cover up. The ability to hide information from the people gives massive amounts of power to those who might taint the truth. Hameleers, M., & van der Meer, T. G. L. A. concluded that “fact-checkers do have the potential to correct attitude-congruent misinformation” (2019).
Is this where we are today? Are we so afraid of our abilities to discern truth from fiction that we allow a group of people to decide what information we consume?
Brannon, V. C. shows the conflict between those who want social media regulated and those who believe in free speech, highlighting how the Supreme Court grants free speech even on social media, which the First Amendment protects. (2019)
What are your thoughts? Do you support the restriction of information for the good of the people, or do you believe we should be accountable for researching the information given and making an informed decision? But how do we regard the youth who take deception at face value? Do we have the right to shield and protect them from what we deem invaluable? Are our values the pinnacle to the rest of society? Are you comfortable only seeing posts and articles curated by your political opponent? Who gets to define truth? There are compelling arguments on either side. What is your stand?
_______________________________________
Deleted for Your Welfare
by Stephanie Daich
References:
