Trading factchecks for fat cheques

Spinach is full of iron.  We only use 10% of our brain power.  Man never landed on the moon.  Vaccines cause autism.  They’re eating the cats.

You have an influencer friend, Fred.  He tells you that he has discovered that he can reach more people and make more money if he just stops checking whether things are true before he shares them with his audience.  What would you think of Fred?

Is it morally wrong if he doesn’t create the misinformation himself, but just passes it along to those who have chosen to listen to him?  Haven’t we all been guilty of repeating common misconceptions at some point?  Can we hold one person morally accountable for repeating reports of pet consumption in Springfield, but give another a pass for inflicting spinach on their children at every meal?

As Gina Rushton reports, Meta has now taken a position on this ethical dilemma.  Where in 2021 it celebrated “industry leading” fact-checking, it recently announced the retirement of independent fact-checking services in order to “restore free expression”.

In moral terms, Meta has given up being an “earnest fool” - who tries to do the right thing, but sometimes fails due to lack of capability - and instead opted to be a “stoned hippie” - who knows not all opinions comport equally with reality, but believes that the right to express opinions is a more fundamental value; “Yeah man, that’s like, your opinion and you should believe whatever is right for you”.

Perhaps neither is more morally culpable than the other.  It is hard to detect malice in either persona.

But, now he’s told you he is giving up checking the truth, next time he tells you something, will you trust Fred the same, more or less?  When he told you his motivation is seeking clicks and cash, did that give you pause?  

Fred is Facebook and we should all think clearly about whether we want to listen to anything Fred has to say.