Facebook and the Ethical Delimma of Value Neutrality in the Digital Age
In today's digital age, social media platforms like Facebook have become integral parts of our lives, shaping our interactions, perceptions, and even our worldviews. However, as these platforms wield immense power in curating content and influencing user behavior, the concept of value neutrality becomes a critical issue. Value neutrality is the idea that platforms should remain impartial, unbiased, and devoid of any value judgments that may favor specific groups, ideologies, or interests. In regards to Facebook specifically, value neutrality raises the expectation that the platform should act as an impartial facilitator of communication and expression. Algorithmic value neutrality, a critical component within this framework, asserts that algorithms responsible for content curation and user experiences remain impartial by being driven solely by user interactions. The concept of value neutrality is essential in the digital realm to ensure fair representation, freedom of expression, and equal opportunities for all users. Facebook is not value-neutral due to its algorithmic biases, but due to its enormous power and influence, Facebook has an ethical obligation to act in its users’ best interest.
Facebook employs a complex set of algorithms that govern an important aspect of user experience: their news feeds. The algorithms are designed to analyze user data and interactions, aiming to deliver personalized content so that “they are more likely to spend time on News Feed and enjoy their experience.” In other words, algorithms are good for business. In 2016, Facebook revealed its internal editorial guides in rebuttal to accusations of political bias. It outlined how algorithms drove most of the decision-making for the “trending topics” section with editors, most leaning left, overseeing each step of the process. Facebook responded to allegations of biases of the editors suppressing or adding stories on the site’s “trending topics” section as a neutral process “surfaced by an algorithm.” However, that is the very problem. Human-made algorithms reflect human biases because it is simply a collection of rules decided by their programmers. Thus, even if the editors are somehow biased in deciding which stories are elevated, the algorithm would still not be neutral. Furthermore, because algorithms elevate posts that encourage interaction, feeds can turn into echo chambers of divisive content that support the user’s outlook. This process limits the diversity of ideas that users encounter by creating information silos where dissenting voices are marginalized or silenced. This polarizes individuals because their views keep getting reinforced. In essence, Facebook is not free speech, it is algorithmic amplification optimized for interaction which often means content that will create outrage and increase polarization.
These algorithmic biases are particularly harmful to women, people of color, and low-income individuals. For example, Facebook allowed advertisers to exclude certain demographics from seeing housing ads, a practice that could enable housing discrimination. Additionally, the algorithmic delivery of job ads has shown gender and racial biases by reinforcing existing inequalities and limiting opportunities for marginalized groups. Moreover, the algorithmic amplification of divisive content and misinformation can disproportionately affect communities with lower incomes and limited access to diverse sources of information, further deepening societal divisions. Facebook's algorithmic biases are not only a matter of concern for individual users but also have wider implications for societal equity and justice.
The consequences of Facebook's biased algorithm and its absence of value neutrality are deeply significant and far-reaching. In a society where marginalized groups already face systemic discrimination, the reinforcement of such biases by multi-billion dollar technology platforms is unacceptable. Facebook's algorithmic biases can amplify existing inequalities, making it imperative to address these issues with urgency and rigor. Furthermore, the platform's impact extends beyond demographics, as it shapes the very ideas and narratives that users encounter. Despite Facebook's self-presentation as an open and democratic space, the underlying reality reveals a more troubling landscape where algorithms and content editors prioritize profit over honesty and objectivity.
Facebook’s unparalleled power and influence set it apart from many other publicly traded companies. While it shares the typical fiduciary duty to its shareholders, Facebook’s ability to transform societies by changing how humans communicate and interact with each other calls for a greater obligation to its users than its stakeholders by the simple measure of how many lives are being impacted and the magnitude. This entails taking steps to mitigate algorithmic biases that create echo chambers and filter bubbles by not censoring or promoting specific news, as well as actively addressing issues like fake news and hate speech. Such measures may lead to decreased user engagement, but they can also mitigate polarization and promote mental health, with far-reaching implications for public discourse and societal harmony. By prioritizing user trust and well-being, Facebook can enhance its long-term success and demonstrate that ethical responsibility aligns with its business interests. In this way, it can harness its extraordinary influence to become a more positive force in the world.
The issue of Facebook prioritizing profit over societal betterment raises fundamental questions about transparency and user agency. What becomes problematic is the dissonance between Facebook's profit-driven motives and its portrayal of itself as a platform that champions user choice and freedom. This illusion of choice can be particularly disempowering for users, as it obscures the true nature of the platform's operations and the extent to which algorithms shape their experiences. In essence, users are disabled from making truly informed decisions about their engagement with the platform. Moreover, the absence of objectivity within Facebook, driven by algorithms designed to maximize user interaction, often means that content prioritized on users' feeds is that which generates outrage or aligns with preexisting beliefs. In this context, Facebook's supposed neutrality becomes an elusive ideal, further underscoring the need for greater transparency, ethical clarity, and respect for user agency in the digital landscape.
In our capitalistic society, Facebook's decision-making is undeniably influenced by its primary goal of growth and profitability. At the heart of this discussion lies Mark Zuckerberg, a figure of extraordinary power within the company who plays a pivotal role in shaping Facebook's priorities and policies. Zuckerberg's interactions with federal authorities in the United States, marked by an often disinterested or borderline disrespectful demeanor, reflect a recognition of that he is, arguably, just as powerful as the United States government. This concentration of power and the perceived disregard for external oversight underscore the pressing need for transparency, fairness, and accountability within the platform's decision-making processes. Facebook must proactively address its algorithmic biases and ethical concerns, not only to better serve its users but also to fulfill its broader societal responsibilities as a platform with global reach and influence. If Facebook operates as a quasi-government in a sense, then we, its subjects, bear the responsibility of scrutinizing and holding it accountable for its actions in the digital realm.
It falls upon us, the consumers, to exercise vigilance and discernment in our media consumption. We have a responsibility to approach social media consciously and with caution, recognizing that the content we encounter is often shaped by algorithms designed for engagement rather than objective truth. Moreover, we must actively seek out diverse perspectives and engage with content that challenges our existing beliefs. Rather than approaching controversial topics from a purely partisan standpoint, we should strive to gain a comprehensive and informed understanding. When leaders fail, the power to navigate the digital landscape ethically and responsibly rests in our hands, and it is through our individual choices and actions that we can foster a more balanced and informed online discourse.
Bibliography
Angwin, Julia, Noam Scheiber, and Ariana Tobin. 2017. “Facebook Job Ads Raise Concerns about Age Discrimination.” The New York Times, December 20, 2017, sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/business/facebook-job-ads.html#:~:text=On%20Wednesday%2C%20a%20class%2Daction.
Barrett, Paul, Justin Hendrix, and Grant Sims. 2021. “How Tech Platforms Fuel U.S. Political Polarization and What Government Can Do about It.” Brookings. September 27, 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-tech-platforms-fuel-u-s-political-polarization-and-what-government-can-do-about-it/.
“Facebook Offers Set of ‘Values’ to Reassure Users of Neutrality.” 2016. The Hill. June 29, 2016. https://thehill.com/homenews/285958-facebook-offers-set-of-values-to-reassure-users-of-neutrality/.
Isaac, Mike. 2016. “Facebook, Facing Bias Claims, Shows How Editors and Algorithms Guide News (Published 2016).” The New York Times, May 12, 2016, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/technology/facebook-guidelines-trending-topics.html.
Osnos, Evan. 2018. “How Much Trust Can Facebook Afford to Lose?” The New Yorker. December 19, 2018. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-much-trust-can-facebook-afford-to-lose.
Osofsky, Justin . 2016. “Information about Trending Topics.” Meta. May 12, 2016. https://about.fb.com/news/2016/05/information-about-trending-topics/.
ProPublica. 2016. “Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race.” ProPublica. ProPublica. October 28, 2016. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race.
“Value Neutrality: Definition and Examples | Vaia.” n.d. Hello Vaia. Accessed September 29, 2023. https://www.hellovaia.com/explanations/social-studies/theories-and-methods/value-neutrality/.
