Is Trump win Facebook’s “fault”?

Tens of millions of Americans woke up last week, and their candidate did not win the Presidency. Some went about their day disappointed but otherwise dedicated to doing whatever they do. Others took to the streets to protest a candidate they claim they would never accept.



Nothing really new to see there, we’ve seen upset voters and protests before. Something we haven’t seen? Folks blaming Facebook for Clinton’s loss. While it might seem ridiculous to blame Mark Zuckerberg – a guy who vociferously supported Clinton – for the candidate’s stunning defeat, there are a lot of Facebook users who think it’s a legitimate complaint … and their opinion poses a strong PR problem for Facebook and Zuckerberg.

The complaint typically comes in two parts:

One, that Facebook filters legitimate news sources and articles from major newspapers based on the user’s preferences and previous clicks. The idea here is that people aren’t seeing information that would be good for them to see and read because Facebook is both actively and passively filtering content, so those people don’t see it. Not because the company is trying to keep them from seeing it, but because the algorithm Facebook uses to build individual timelines doesn’t “think” that user wants to read that content.

The second part of the argument is that Facebook is not filtering content enough. This version of the complaint sounds something like this: Facebook should block or limit the amount of ridiculous clickbait and patently incorrect information on news feeds, regardless of what people actually want to see. In other words, people want Facebook to institute some version of the famous Fairness Doctrine that used to govern radio and television news.

For his part, Zuckerberg responded to this notion, that fake news on Facebook actually influenced the election, by saying: “Personally, I think the idea that fake news on Facebook – it’s a very small amount of the content – influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea…”

This argument is not sitting well with users who are unhappy with the steady stream of nonsense being pushed through social media on a regular basis. They believe the incorrect and blatantly false information is effective in fooling people and effective in influencing voting positions on numerous issues.

This is not a position or an opinion these people are likely to give up on, and it’s in Facebook’s best interest to address this concern. There’s a movement bubbling beneath the surface. Right now it’s popping up as criticism of media as a whole, but it’s slowing shifting into a disparagement of partisan media that seeks to influence and not inform. Facebook has an opportunity to take the lead or get lumped in with everyone else when the public revolts against this form of media manipulation.

Phil Shawe is an entrepreneur based in New York.