Users should be responsible for vetting their sources …
I think that Facebook shouldn’t fact-check political speech. The media is wrong all the time, and it’s the job of the people to choose what news to believe and what news to ignore. People should be allowed to form their own opinions and if they really want the truth, they’ll look for it.
— Elliot Wells, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC
Initially I believed that Facebook should fact check its ads. However, it is the job of the consumer to question what they read. News sources everywhere are biased, and the media often puts out fake news. By saying that Facebook should only post true material, there is the danger of only telling half of a story, or only showing what some people believe to be true. And by saying that websites, companies, and people should only allow validated ads to be posted, there is the possibility of infringement on free speech.
— Samantha Rogala, Norwood High School, Norwood, MA
Using Facebook as your primary means of staying up-to-date on politics is irresponsible. People are already quick to acknowledge the bias in major news sources, such as CNN or FOX. These sources are run by people trained to portray the news as accurately as possible, and any bias that seeps through is likely just accidental. It seems surprising that, given how many people distrust professional news sites, people are still rushing to Facebook to get their news from people’s personal accounts.
— Jillian Steeves, Danvers, MA
… or should they?
Initially when posed with this question of limiting public content on Facebook, I was compelled to immediately argue for the undeniable right to free speech Americans are supposed to have. But with the current circumstances in consideration I find it difficult to compare the free speech of newspapers and soapboxes in 1789 to modern day global scale, instant communications. There is a much larger impact nowadays because any message can be viewed by the masses within seconds. With a constant influx of information at our fingertips it becomes difficult to decipher whether what we read is reliable or not. It is unfair for Facebook to expect their viewers to filter what politicians are saying, especially if Facebook has the power to fact check.
Without this reliability that current and future voters can depend on, we might as well pick our president based on who has the prettiest hair, but who knows, that’s probably a lie too. Today’s world needs a president that they can trust, and if we can’t even trust the information we’re being given, will we ever know the honest truth?
— Olivia Graham-Diaz, Benicia, CA
People are prone to believe the first things that they see and don’t even attempt to fact check the information. The extreme amounts of false information that is to come from this policy can be very dangerous. People will end up spreading these false stories to those who follow them, and someone who follows them will spread it, resulting in a vicious cycle of lies. I believe that the fake news will be more dangerous in this way than any other.
— Bennett M, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC
Who should determine fact from fiction on social media?
Political ads are usually subjective/biased, so the “fact-checking” could get subjective and even more political, so it seems unreasonable that the fact-checking would stay unbiased. Furthermore, it should be monitored by someone else (a government agency, a nonpartisan private organization, or something like that so the people posting the false material are still held accountable. Also, where would the fact-checking end on Facebook if it were started? There would be no clear line for what needs to be fact-checked and what doesn’t, which would get to be too big of a responsibility for a company whose main focus is not fact-checking. After all, they aren’t a database. They’re a social media platform.
