Commentary: Facebook, politicians both guilty of magnifying discontent

BOISE — Would you trust Facebook to run the country? Frances Haugen didn’t specifically address that question during her “60 Minutes” interview last fall, but trust was certainly an underlying theme of the conversation.

Haugen, a former manager in Facebook’s “civic integrity” unit, filed several whistleblower complaints with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in September.

The complaints allege that Facebook’s public statements regarding its efforts to curtail hate speech and misinformation conflict with its own internal reports, which paint a much bleaker picture.

“Over and over, there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook,” Haugen told “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley. “And Facebook chose over and over to optimize for its own interests, for making money.”

In 2018, she said, Facebook changed the algorithm it relies on to prioritize content on a user’s news feed, giving more weight to the types of stories they’ve clicked on in the past.

The practice, Haugen said, basically inflames passions. It sends users down the rabbit hole. If they read one story about stealing an election, pretty soon they’ll be seeing dozens of similar articles, with little regard for how reputable the source.

The company’s internal research raised concerns about the consequences, Haugen said, but “Facebook realized if it changed the algorithm to be safer, people would spend less time on its site. They’d click on fewer ads and Facebook would make less money.”

I was particularly interested in these observations because I’ve seen similar behavior among political parties and candidates.

Rather than focus on important-yet-boring policy matters, they look for hotbutton issues that drive engagement. The faction that’s out of power promotes dissatisfaction with the faction that’s in power. The in-group spreads fears about what will happen if the out-group takes control. Both sides try to rile people up, hoping to generate campaign contributions, increase party registration and ultimately attract votes.

There’s nothing unreasonable about this practice. In fact, it makes perfect sense. It’s an intelligent use of resources.

But it does raise the issue of trust.

At their best, algorithms and political campaigns can bridge divides and highlight the shared concerns we have about the future.

All too often, though, they’re used to manipulate. By presenting skewed versions of reality, they magnify discontent in order to encourage certain responses — donations, clicks, spending and votes.

In his presentation to the Legislature’s joint budget committee last week, University of Idaho President Scott Green discussed the impact of this behavior on higher education.

Specifically, he pointed to efforts by the Idaho Freedom Foundation and its legislative allies to cut college and university funding to punish the institutions for “indoctrinating” students into liberal philosophies.

Green said an independent investigation of the allegations found no evidence to support the charge.

“In short, the entire social justice narrative on which UI was penalized $500,000 (last year) was a false narrative created by conflict entrepreneurs who make a living sowing fear and doubt,” he said.

Critics will note that UI paid for the “independent” investigation, so its findings are hardly a surprise.

The same, of course, can be said of claims that pinko academics do nothing but spend their days turning good Republican boys and girls into godless Democrats.

When faced with accusations of this kind, it isn’t simply a matter of whether they’re true — is indoctrination taking place or not? It’s also a question of source.

Whether it’s a corporate whistleblower, university president, conservative advocacy group or newspaper columnist, can the people who feed us information be trusted?

This is a particularly relevant issue in an election year.

If candidates say the system is broken, are they coming into office believing that, or have they made good-faith efforts to work within the status quo before criticizing its merits? Are they simply making excuses for their own incompetence: their inability to convince others to accept their views?

When they highlight problems, are they really looking for solutions? Are they willing to work with others to improve the situation, or do they habitually escalate and amplify disagreements?

Do they seek to learn about the issues, or simply spread misinformation?

“When we live in an information environment that’s full of angry, hateful, polarizing content, it erodes our civic trust,” Haugen said. “It erodes our faith in one another, and our ability to want to care for each other. That version of Facebook is tearing societies apart.”

If we wouldn’t trust Facebook to run the country, why would we trust politicians who use Facebook-like tactics to do a better job?

Spence may be contacted at bspence@lmtribune. com or (208) 791-9168.