3 Things Zuckerberg Said On Facebook's Role In Influencing US Elections Zuckerberg Said Facebook Could Not Have Any Role In Spreading Fake News About Politicians
By Nidhi Singh
Opinions expressed by BIZ Experiences contributors are their own.
You're reading BIZ Experiences India, an international franchise of BIZ Experiences Media.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended himself against allegations that fake news on Facebook influenced the US Presidential Elections.Speaking at Techonomy 2016, a technology conference in California, Zuckerberg said Facebook could not have any role in spreading fake news about politicians.
Here are three important things Zuckerberg said in response to claims that Facebook affected US Elections.
News Feeds Ensure Transparency
When asked about the transparency of Facebook news feed, he said news feed is probably one of the most important product on facebook.He insisted Facebook is very transparent when it comes to news feed and more can always be done to improve the quality of the News Feed experience.
"We design systems to help people view the content that is most meaningful.There is lot more improvement we can make and that's why you should be surprised when you see us continuing to improve the algorithm," he said.
Facebook's Fake News A Crazy Idea
Zuckerberg denied the idea of how fake political news on facebook helped Trump win the Presidential elections. He further suggested that one reason fake news could not have influenced the election is that false and inaccurate articles were posted about Trump and Hillary Clinton.
"Personally, I think the idea that fake news on facebook influence the election is a pretty crazy idea.Voters make a decision on their lived experience.If you believe that then I don't think you have internalised the message Trump supporters are trying to send in this election," he said.
Profound Lack Of Empathy
He defended himself by adding that the fake news is very small amount of content on the social media site.
"There is a profound lack of empathy in asserting the only reason someone could have voted the way they did is they saw some fake news. The quickest way to refuse this is to say why would you think there would be fake news on one side and not the other?", he added.
