This is a complicated question. On the one hand, Facebook is a rich and profitable company. On the other hand, it has several threats. I say Facebook lives on borrowed time. The younger generation moves away from Facebook, but Facebook's abundance of funds allows purchases from various competitions. However, three contradictory processes fight each other.
- 1. Technology is changing faster than the site.
- 2. Boycotting can have a major effect on Facebook.
- 3. There is a great chance that technological innovation will come and replace Facebook.
Not everyone likes Facebook, but once the majority of the public decides on an innovation that will capture their attention, the company management will carry the overall responsibility for those who voted for it and those who did not.
The public's job is to demand that this responsibility be met, along with meeting ethical challenges; "With great power comes great responsibility," stated Uncle Ben in the comic book 'Spider-Man.' The phrase perfectly defines the conflict between social networks and their consumers.
The huge corporate boycott on Facebook has prompted Zuckerberg to respond quickly, but the drama hides economic interests and a lot of advertisers' hypocrisy. Even if the stock has plunged 8.3% and the momentum seems contrary, we do not see a significant change in company policy. Facebook, holding almost exclusive control of the social market. It has been selected to be the pipeline for information from every part of the world. The Silicon Valley technology company has decided to determine where the boundary between freedom of speech and incitement lies.
In recent years, the Western world has suffered from trends of radicalization and incitement. There has been suffering due to the tyranny of the majority against minority groups, the use of rhetoric based on lies and half-facts, and a deliberate violation of public trust in media and government institutions. Well-educated politicians and pressure groups use the media, especially social networks, with the less controlled territory, to do as they wish. They spread messages and harness their propaganda followers. All of this is legitimate until two invalid factors are entered into the equation.
- 1. The first factor is the use of anti-democratic techniques being used. Methods such as: misrepresenting facts and calling to harm innocent groups - all common in the service of politicians and their followers.
- 2. The second factor is the encounter between these kinds of behaviors and the platform's revenue model. In this case, the social network.
Once these factors control the media platform revenue, it is of their best interest to benefit from this behavior, although they did not initiate it. Facebook claims that the algorithm determines what content will be presented to different groups of users. The mysterious algorithm takes the role of a news desk in a traditional communication system and encourages extreme messages for a higher rating. In practice, it prioritizes content that leads to incitement and violence: the main reason being the top ratings and increased exposure to advertisements. Facebook has often come out in statements that it is a policy of non-interference. They refused to take responsibility for its social function.
Who Will Win: Social Responsibility or The Revenue Line?
In recent days, the pressure on Facebook has increased and has led to the reconsideration of this policy. It has even prompted a statement from the company's founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, that the company's management will reconsider its policy and look at how to prevent outrageous and devastating publications, including those from politicians. We all have to wait and see how the statement is translated into actions, and to what extent Facebook is willing to compromise its revenue in favor of higher social responsibility.
SEO: What is Local SEO? How to do Local SEO in 2020?
What is Organic ranking? How to rank higher on Google? How to do Local SEO? Here's All you need to know.
This change has led by some of the company's employees who have publicly come out against its pretentious policies. Users are calling for boycotting the network and, above all, halting ads from major advertisers. Coca-Cola, Verizon, and Unilever have stopped their relations with Facebook due to its promotion of violence. This practice has put social media into an environment that brands like to be identified with.
This decision places Facebook into the category of controversial media platforms and websites with abusive content. All of which choose revenue at the expense of social responsibility, and yet advertisers reject it today. This protest is in the initial stages and is limited in scope. However, Facebook executives have noticed the declining stock prices and realized that hiding their practices is not a long-term option.
How Does Instagram Kill an Influencer’s Millions of Dollars?
No more Instagram likes. Is it a brilliant economic move?
No one can hide from such practices. Rising protests against President Trump's offensive speeches, insurgency against police violence, and discriminatory treatment of the Black and African American community has pushed corporations who distance themselves from the issue, like Facebook, to opt-in and declare a socio-moral position. This is also at the potential cost of hurting revenue shortly. Now Facebook executives are required to confront the complicated issue that cuts its revenue and share prices.
Is this the first step towards a transformational social change? Will capitalism restrain itself and realize that gaining from commercial organizations cannot come at the expense of damaging the foundation of democracy? We will see the outcome in the coming months.