Tellingly, the two articles found tagged as “disputed” by Facebook in Gizmodo’s tests on Friday shared some important characteristics: They’re critical of the Trump administration and originate from sites that openly admit to posting fictitious stories. In November, a source told Gizmodo that the social network’s fight against fake news before the election was undercut by a “fear about upsetting conservatives.”

Advertisement

As a political news juggernaut that would prefer to be apolitical, Facebook finds itself in an unwinnable position. Months before the new feature debuted, some were already warning that the system won’t go far enough. And no doubt, the company will hear cries of “censorship” once it disputes a story conservatives actually believe.

In the end, Facebook’s solution seems to be a solid compromise that will leave both fact-checkers and free speech absolutists unsatisfied. Perhaps the premise itself is flawed. Instead of wondering what Facebook is doing about fake news, maybe we should ask why we largely trust a single website to decide what is and isn’t worth seeing online.

Advertisement

[h/t Anna Merlan]