The social networking site "Facebook" recently announced that it has developed a set of plans aimed at reducing the political content that is displayed on the home page of the site's users, and this step was justified by the company's management as a response to users' discontent with the large political content displayed. It is clear that Facebook's decision to reduce the political content circulating on users' home pages on the platform, under the pretext of responding to users' desire to reduce the presentation of political topics of a controversial nature, did not convince many.
There are convictions among those who reject the decision that it aims to reshape awareness in a way that may serve the agendas of political parties at the expense of others.
 |
Facebook's recent decision to reduce its participation in political content can be assessed by the following:
1- A plan to avoid getting involved in political debates:
The social networking site “Facebook” recently announced that it has put in place a set of plans aimed at reducing political content that is displayed on the home page of its users , stressing that this matter will be started on users in both Canada. Brazil and Indonesia this week, while US users will have the same experience over the coming weeks.
2- Justifying the move with the users’ discontent:
The CEO of the company, “Mark Zuckerberg” justified this step by saying that “ Facebook users have expressed their dissatisfaction with following up on many political news of a controversial nature on Facebook pages; Therefore, the company aims to limit political content on the platform to only 6% .”
3- Seeking to adopt political neutrality:
Despite the promotion of those in charge of Facebook management, the site is a platform for the free expression of opinions, including those related to the political field; The platform was attacked, especially after the 2016 US presidential election; Therefore, Facebook sought to distance itself from influencing or pushing individuals to adopt certain political positions and choices, while stopping the inflammatory rhetoric. This was evident in the event of closing the account of former US President Donald Trump.
4- Exploiting the monopoly position of the company:
many have criticized the broad powers granted to large technology companies; They considered that it is unfair for companies to monopolize the decision-making process in important and crucial public areas, such as the decision to reduce political content on the platform, at a time when the majority of users may rely on Facebook for news of a political nature .
5- Multiple inconsistencies in Facebook’s justifications:
It is clear that the claim that Facebook reduces political content on the platform in response to the desire of users; It is far from true, and expresses the desire of a part of the users, not the majority .
The site with this new strategy is also working on building the awareness of individuals by focusing on certain aspects without the other, which is what the founder of the platform sought to deny after Congress and a wide range of users pointed the finger at the site and its administrators because of that matter.
In general, it is clear that the Facebook administration’s decision to reduce the political content circulating on the users’ main pages on the platform, under the pretext of responding to the users’ desire to reduce the presentation of political topics of a controversial nature; Many were not convinced, which will open the door to greater criticism of the site in the coming period, especially with the conviction that what is being done on the part of the site is the formation of awareness in a way that may serve the agendas of political parties at the expense of other parties.
Add Comments