Why I'm not Quitting Facebook

And why We Need Regulation

When Meta announced that it was removing its fact checking function from Facebook, the reaction was immediate by many users. “I’m quitting,” was not an uncommon response among those on the left.

Threats to quit Facebook have followed a larger pattern involving, first X, because Elon Musk has ruined it and The Washington Post, because, under pressure, apparently, from Jeff Bezos, the paper withdrew its editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris before it was published. The New York Times has not been immune from this trend. When the paper gave a platform to Senator Tom Cotton on his editorial page, it caused a firestorm inside the paper and threats from readers to cancel their subscriptions.

(Tic Tok has been under siege for a while, not due to its content, but because it poses a national security threat, and, as such, should be placed, I would argue, into a different category.)

I didn’t quit X, although I haven’t used it much in recent years, not because my own feed has gone through any radical change, but because it’s always been fairly idiotic. I just lost my appetite for short, sometimes witty, more often, a great deal less than witty, media posts. Memes are fine to a point, but they only get you so far.

I didn’t quit the Washington Post, because, while I don’t especially like Jeff Bezos, and I disagreed with the decision not to run the editorial, the Post does some important investigative reporting and has some excellent columnists (along some I don’t particularly like). I’m not to going to punish great reporting, or, as importantly, my own understanding about the world, because of a stupid move on the part the newspaper’s owner. As with The New York Times, which sometimes infuriates me, the Post has many diamonds in its rough, and it’s the diamonds that I’m after and that I won’t give up upon.

I am also uncomfortable with the idea of withdrawal as a smart and meaningful strategy in response to things we might not like. To take a different example, I was recently spending time with my brother’s family. My brother, who cannot stomach Donald Trump any more than I can, told me that he hasn’t followed any news since the election. And he discouraged any discussion of it, even discussions critical of Trump, during our dinner get togethers.

I must ask, do such actions (or inactions in this case) injure the Trump administration? I don’t see how. Moreover, they damage civil society, because opposition to Trump’s authoritarian instincts are only effective if people are engaged, even if it pisses them off to be engaged. This holds true, I would argue, for social media as well. Disengagement just turns things over to the crazies, who will be freer to spread whatever crap that have to peddle because they will have less resistance.

And individual action in this case will do little to influence Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook is so huge and so global that the withdraw of a few thousand, or even a million users, will have virtually no impact on Meta’s bottom line.

I would make a comparison to individual actions to combat climate change. I used to teach Environmental Politics, and, as someone who did that, I tried my best to limit my carbon footprint, because I wanted to set a good example for my students, and to be somewhat consistent in my beliefs and actions.

Still, I had no illusions that my actions, or individual actions in general, would significantly limit carbon outputs. What we needed, and what we need, are effective public policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. That is true in the realm of social media as well.

The EU has taken such action with the Digital Services Act, which restricts hate speech and terrorist content. Attempts to impose such restriction in the U.S. face high hurdles, given the power of social media companies, and potential first amendment challenges. But the fossil fuel industry, despite consistent efforts to prevent action on climate change, has not been able to stop it. And carefully tailored regulatory controls could avoid first amendment objections.

I would argue that it is better to become involved with and support regulatory efforts than withdraw into digital isolation.