Q: So it can be controlled?
A: An open society like ours is always going to
be vulnerable to disinformation. We have a free
and open internet. You don’t need an ID to open
a Twitter or Facebook account. We don’t arrest
people for spreading disinformation. So, in the
last four to five years, a lot of semi-reputable,
highly partisan media outlets have emerged
that amplify extreme views to try to widen
societal divisions. Tech companies, meantime,
don’t want to be the arbiters of truth, and I think
that’s reasonable.
Q: The U.S. news media got criticized for how
it handled Democratic Party emails stolen in
- Has it gotten any better at squelching the
weaponization of such information?
A: No. It’s a super competitive media
environment. Journalists want to be first.
There’s been very little self-reflection. Tech
companies have self-flagellated a lot on these
issues. You’ve seen almost nothing from any
flagship media organizations.
Q: Facebook says it won’t be fact-checking
politicians’ speech. Was that a mistake?
A: No. I think it’s the right thing. We have to
temper our desire for the companies to solve
some of these problems with our concern about
the power they have. It is reasonable for them to
do things like limit access to advertising. It does
the most damage, in part because it’s targeted.
The platforms are able to downgrade inaccurate
content. But to artificially downgrade non-paid
political speech by candidates is, I think, to give
too much power to social media companies that
are already spectacularly powerful.