Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook Can Help the News Business

Advertising revenue that used to support journalism now goes to companies like mine. We have a plan to help fix that.

Comments: 164

  1. "Supporting quality news can also help us fight misinformation." Lord knows you and Facebook aren't doing this. Facebook has dramatically undermined news organizations' ability to fight misinformation. And now Facebook is allowing politicians to straight up lie in their ads, something news organizations and other media companies had the common decency to regulate. While I appreciate that Facebook is now making an effort to support news organizations, I fear it's too little too late.

  2. @William James Yes, too little too late for our electoral process.

  3. @William James It is too late. This is clearly a direct response to the platform's continual scrutiny. Would such steps have been made if the platform never caught fire? There's no telling. In 2018, 98% of Facebook's revenue came from advertising, how much did American companies contribute to that? We don't know. But what's abundantly clear now is that Facebook's eyes are no longer on American soil. Now with the addition of Facebook News along with the Facebook Watch streaming service, the company has clear plans to become a media conglomerate. And with the so called journalists curating what 'news' is published, the company is slowly morphing into its own news channel if you may. Facebook broke rules before they were even made and continues to dodge any sort of government regulation. If the platform continues to maintain its present unfettered course, we're not looking at a nationwide problem, we're looking at global one.

  4. @William James Bragging about breaking rules and moving fast can backfire. Until FB finds a way to monetize the expulsion of political advertising on its platform, they won’t do it. Clearly , with the power that’s in play with that segment of advertising, the income it generates is probably huge. That’s the problem. With money IN politics, money IS politics, with power to the payer, winner take all.

  5. It will take time for Facebook to make amends, however I believe this is a step towards the right direction. While Facebook has much to be criticized for, it is important to applaud them for trying to slowly change for the better. They still got a lot more work to do before they can fully recover the American citizens trust.

  6. @mayur I suppose you believe Trump is also looking after your interest and their is no major cover up going on at the White House and children arent in cages . Facebook has no incentive to change, they have had years, hired a bunch of smart white people and they are still selling our democracy off. Facebook loves the Russians because they are putting money into his childs saving accounts, so sorry this pathetic story is not working on the rest of us. The NYT was very gracious to have his point of view expressed. However the NYT has made questionable judgement calls before. this one is questionable

  7. Mark, don't promise - DO. You talk a lot but do little. Oh, and Facebook isn't a news organization, it's a social site, and you're profiting from its political and social abuse. You've had the ability to clean it up for years, but won't do it. Not because you can't, but because you won't, and all of your carefully chosen words to inspire trust now fall flat.

  8. Mr Zuckerberg, before you pontificate about helping news businesses, please first (1) take proper care of our data, (2) keep Russia and others from using Facebook to meddle in our elections, and (3) remove false statements from your platform. Over and over, Facebook has been breached; Russia continues to use Facebook; and lies are disseminated via Facebook. You've apologized several times, but what have you actually done? Nothing!

  9. @spindizzy What has he done? Pocketed even more money and done absolutely nothing. He and Sandberg have leaned in laughing about how much they make each month.

  10. Hmm, so the guy who's motto was "move fast and break things" like the news biz for example, now has a plan to fix it. Warren's plan to fix Facebook(by breaking it up) is much better.

  11. @Mr. B I'm with Bernie or Warren on this. Skeptical that the other front runner, Biden, is even aware of how to login to FB, let alone understand the importance of breaking it up.

  12. @Mr. B The galling arrogance & hypocrisy that progressive pundits exhibit over Facebook is really over the top. In 2008 Facebook ads, were skillfully deployed to help elect Obama president & they were the darling of the woke crowd. Today progressives hate Big Tech & want to go to war. We know how this is going to end. Progressive zealots are going to drive Facebook, Amazon, Google & the rest of Silicon Valley right into the arms of the GOP. Brilliant move. Let's make a fierce enemy of an industry that would have supported the Democratic party. I don't think it's an accident that Zuckerberg has been meeting with prominent conservatives in the last few months. Facebook, like Amazon and Google, have the financial muscle to credibly oppose the government in court in a protracted fight. It's a lose-lose situation. There's NO widespread call from the American public to do this! Progressives can't abide by anything or anyone who has the power or influence to challenge absolute governmental authority. This political battle is a good example of why progressives will never gain any traction in this country. Leftists are determined to drive the Democrats off the cliff in a pointless fight. It's going to take more than one lesson & progressives are going to certainly get more than one lesson. This debacle could facilitate Trump winning a 2nd term. The excessive amount of attention to this can backfire, with Trump being reelected & it not being the result of Russian interference.

  13. @Bill Brown Your post is the perfect example of why these corps need to be broken up. We are not well served by monopolies, Bill. When a giant corporation is allowed to deter start ups from succeeding, we don't have capitalism.

  14. Regulation of Facebook is long overdue. I do not trust this man.

  15. @David Yes! The piece is shot through with smarmy rewriting of history to make it look like this man has nothing in mind but public service. Example: he’d like us to think he’s gone around interviewing news orgs to find out what they need/how he can help. When more likely he’s just been on a PR tour, for his own benefit. Whatever Facebook promotes, beware! I never joined. It was obvious from the “invites” I received (long ago) that my email had been ripped from somebody else’s sign-up, as if the person had invited me. So I distrusted Facebook from the get-go. My motto is: avoid Facebook!

  16. @David Agreed - no trust to the Zuck. We need to remember that he started Facebook to get back at a girl who didn't want to date him. The "oranges"of things are always important to remember.

  17. Ok, this is something. However, political adds have a huge impact on shaping our society. A site like Facebook empowers anything that appears there. So, Facebook really needs to be responsible and not pass along dishonest political adds, through its platform.

  18. @RAB define 'dishonest', isn't it a bit subjective?

  19. "I believe deeply in the social good that journalism provides. Today, it’s more important than ever: We need the news to scrutinize the powerful, reliably document major events and uncover new truths. This makes our society better, and I know from firsthand experience it has made our company better too — even when it’s uncomfortable. I hope our efforts will honor the important work that journalists do and support the news industry that keeps us all informed." Can you swear by you mom and dad's grave that you believe in this statement? I wouldn't if I were you.

  20. Put your money where your mouth is. Then perhaps you will get an acceptable grade correcting issues that are dangerous to our democracy. There is a difference between freedom of speech and responsible public discourse.

  21. Facebook has allowed our most intimate data to be dissected, analyzed, stored, packaged, and sold to again and again. That Data can be sold to the most unscrupulous players who will use it for the most nefarious reasons. And now were told that Facebook wants to help? If Facebook really wants to help, hire real journalists. Stop spreading lies. And hold your advertisers accountable. Maybe then you can talk about trust and accountability. Until then Facebook should be broken up into many small pieces... just like the newspaper world was before Facebook.

  22. My NYT subscription is one of the most coveted things I own. I would subscribe to the Post too but do not have time to read more than one paper. FB to me is just a popularity contest for people who just post pictures of how great their life is. I can’t stand it and find it hard to believe that they could be taken seriously as a serious news source this day and age.

  23. Since your company is apparently still committed to allowing anyone to buy a political ad space, no matter who the seller is or what is being said, you'll have to excuse me if I take this announcement with several thousand grams of salt, Mark. Notwithstanding it is merely copying a number of other already extent news aggregators. Perhaps you would be better advised to create a journalistic foundation that makes generous donations each year to non-profits such as ProPublica. Then come back and talk about how you're trying to help journalism survive.

  24. You have never taken real responsibility for your company's role in the 2016 election and your actions and corporate involvement in continuing to run political ads are a sign of what side you are really on- the one of accruing even more wealth, ignoring consequences. Not sure if you just have an unformed and unnuanced version of the world or do and are proceeding with cynicism but, like Trump and his enablers, you seem to rely on people believing you at face value, being distracted by a few gestures over general intentions, and not doing their homework. What disrespect. Your disconnect from realities of what your platforms create and feed- or attempts to use highly paid legal to sidestep responsibility are what many see now- no more cheesy belief in your blanket promises of "friendship" and "connection," no satisfaction with the indulgences you buy with your donations, no being impressed by a boy wonder grown into someone who should either know better and do better as a more than wealthy father, adult, employer. It should not be naive to think that there is a line that can be drawn where the pursuit of wealth and power should stop- or one could believe that the reward of a greater good is power greater than having even more money you can never spend amid chaos, destruction, stress, and misery of your partial creation. Mr Zuckerberg, please grow up and try to develop a deeper respect for those you are trying to reach who are not a target for easy lies on FB

  25. Many on the autism spectrum make important contributions to society in scientific and technical fields. However their lack of emotional intelligence, in general, will prevent them from realizing nuances and consequences of social factors. I don’t think greed drives Zuckerberg, necessarily, but I do strongly believe he is unaware of these factors. If only this deficit was without dire consequences for democracy. Bright people cause the most harm when they’re insensitive and unaware.

  26. If I could push a button to delete Facebook forever, I would.

  27. @SeattleGuy This is the best comment here. Amen!

  28. That you said “I’ll delete it” made me ponder upon time, because the act can be only done via time travel, not that on a straight-line, but onto one chosen from many paths in which Facebook had never existed; so that, actually, even you don’t have to delete it. Around the time when Zuckerberg dismissed publicly fake news, my view on Facebook was nearly in your position. In my case, however, I thought of an eraser (=object, physical), for my imagery tends to be much less technological. Now, my thought is that Facebook must continue onto a right path to carry on users’ democratic freedom. I believe such is not impossible however much Zuckerberg’s NYT op-ed partly sounds like apps promos for the company.

  29. It's beyond cliche in 2019 to say the purpose of journalism is to speak truth to power, yet still true as it ever was. For Facebook to suggest they support this mission while explicitly allowing those in power (and those who seek it) the ability to lie to millions is insulting to the hardworking journalists actually carrying it out and the public that depends on that work. The only thing Facebook has done for journalists is create work for Fact Checkers.

  30. He still does not address the problem Facebook has with dissemination of Fake News and Hate News. I think they need to work on that more than this. He’s still in a bubble. The AOC interview shows how unprepared and out of touch he continues to be.

  31. Um, in return for. . . ? Passing this off as a "solution" begs the question: Quid pro quo? Ease off, no fighting in the clubhouse?

  32. So basically, social media lobbyists. How about social media stays out of politics.

  33. Maybe decrease the amount of damage your company inflicts on our democracy, that would be a nice start.

  34. This seems to simply be a way to generate clicks and profits by further exacerbating political polarization and intensifying online echo chambers. Personalized algorithms are antithetical to the whole idea of news, which should broaden people’s horizons, not narrow them. News should be horizontal, not vertical. Moreover, it’s incredibly difficult to trust facebook to be a fair and reliable arbiter of... A) what counts as news B) what counts as fact C) what counts as a reputable source Facebook’s record in doing so thus far is shoddy at best. Facebook is a notorious haven of fake news, pseudoscience and hate speech. Hardly encouraging that they now want to grasp the reigns curated news content even more tightly.

  35. Hey, Mark, how about you clean up all the messes you've made first. The idea that we would trust you or your platform for news is ridiculous!

  36. The sheer velocity of the spin coming out of Zuckerberg/Facebook (and corporate America's marketing people in general) is just so dizzying to regular folks, especially ones that happily consume their products. Is that the ultimate strategy, to make us so dizzy that we can't stand up straight much less think critically and call out the corruption?

  37. It's easy to criticize Facebook and Zuckerberg but I applaud this effort and hope it leads to its stated goal of supporting journalism. I would like to understand more about how Facebook is defining 'misinformation', who or what (algorithms) is in charge of policing that, and if those details will be made public.

  38. "Because people are still better at picking out the most important and highest-quality stories" That is blatantly false. That's how the misinformation campaigns by foreign governments and special interests work - they target people's fears and emotions using lies or exaggerations and let them share and propagate the misinformation. This is literally the problem with Facebook and news. And because sensational fake news gets more clicks and shares and ad revenue than a traditionally researched, reasoned, longer-form piece Facebook is glad to pull in that revenue and those clicks. Facebook will never solve this problem. Zuckerberg has always and will always be making a profit from our private information and our relationships with others. The more people are exploited by his system - the more it proves how powerful the system is for affecting public opinion - and the more money he will rake in by charging people for that exploitation.

  39. Well to be fair, he’s not using an algorithm like you’re describing where the most clicks/views are filtered to the top. Instead, he’s having a dedicated team of experts decide on top news. I think you may have misread the intent there.

  40. Sure, create a Facebook News tab where truthful reporting can be gathered in one place. What does this do for misinformation though? Many people have already written off your partnership sources as "fake news." The creation of a separate space on Facebook for reputable reporting will lead to even greater political polarization as "fake news"-touting individuals will have no motive to utilize it. Quality reporting is also not made more accessible to people through Facebook News. Support journalism and fight disinformation by paying for Facebook users to have access to articles published by legitimate sources of the user's choice.

  41. It should be illegal to target political adds to a group of users. It is one thing to buy a tv add for a whole market it is quite another to guide a political campaign to target voters for ads that contain lies to manipulate their votes or to scare them from the polls or to disinform them of the rules.

  42. @Deirdre I like this idea!

  43. I challenge you, Mark, and your company to reconsider the decision to allow false claims in political ads on your site. Many of my friends and family have identified Facebook as a source of toxicity in their lives; you may see increased engagement with content that sews division, but I have faith that folks will move away from that kind of content in the long term.

  44. Facebook is just another business who's credo is to abuse the public, and if ever called on it, to ask forgiveness, then repeat. Facebook either does not thoroughly think through the negative impacts of its business practices, or it simply does not care, and will only correct when publicly shamed. In other words, they either don't know what they are doing, or they full well know and do not care (aka: profits and market share over ethics). Either case is egregiously irresponsible and unacceptable. For full disclosure, I am not on social media, never have been, and can never imagine being apart of this mostly mindless media. I suggest finding credible news sources and going directly to those sources for your information. You do not need an immediary. MB

  45. Not up for this job; probably a good coder; clearly, someone more savvy should be doing the public speaking and testifying for the company; if he continues, Congress will have its way with his company.

  46. >research suggests people who get their news on social networks are exposed to a wider range of viewpoints. That would be a good thing if a lot of it was not of questionable quality and veracity.

  47. @Edmond There is an axiom in Educational Philosophy that explains all the ills of FaceBook and Social Media in general perfectly that goes something like this ; " The more you pander to the lowest common denominator the lower the lowest common denominator will become " Need I say more ?

  48. If the 2016 election had played out differently, I don't think he would be visiting D.C. every other week. Many people don't see the bigger picture. Mr. Zuckerberg leads a global connectivity platform. His responsibilities, at a high level, center around providing high quality tools and services. Many people in the public square seem to have failed to distinguish 1) Facebook the platform, from 2) The actions of Foreign Governments and associated parties, and 3) Bad Actors / Irresponsible Users (e.g.. politicians who lie, mass shooters who live stream, scammers, etc.). While Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook are highly effective at solving problems at scale and responding to user feedback, he is not responsible for the ills of society and failures of the individual user. It is the responsibility of the individual themselves to think critically, be educated and media literate. If we operate on nothing other than the objective of minimizing social cost, where will be?

  49. @Youngest Millennial Way better than where we are now.

  50. @Youngest Millennial Thank you Mr. Zuckerberg.

  51. @Youngest Millennial It is that very lack of responsibility for repercussions created by his own product that makes Facebook's potential expansion into other areas foolhardy.

  52. I wonder whether news articles that are critical of Facebook will be allowed on there site... or will they be considered misinformation by a team that whose salary depends on the company’s success

  53. Politicians at a snails pace are finally starting to learn the bare bone basics about Zuckerberg's Facebook. Unfortunately that may be too late unless drastic steps are made to stop this out of control empire. This applies to Twitter and other data mining companies as well.

  54. I think it will be helpful to have a separate tab for reputable news sources on facebook and will help local news outlets adapt to current trends. However, if we would like to get ourselves out of the precarious position of relying on censorship to protect the minds of the electorate we need an education system for the 21st century that fosters critical thinking skills required to sift through the mass amounts of information and distinguish propaganda from news.

  55. @Progressive Millenial Voter An education system that fosters critical thinking skills would be the greatest threat to republicans’ ability to hold power. Which is why defunding and actively undermining education is one of the top priorities of republicans, right up there with voter suppression. People with critical-thinking skills in combination with a moderate intellect, an understanding of history, and a moral compass, are an existential threat to republicans, so they do everything possible to prevent the populace from learning. I fear they will continue to be successful in this endeavor.

  56. @Progressive Millenial Voter An education system that fosters critical thinking skills would be the greatest threat to republicans’ ability to hold power. Which is why defunding and actively undermining education is one of the top priorities of republicans, right up there with voter suppression. People with critical-thinking skills in combination with a moderate intellect, an understanding of history, and a moral compass, don’t vote for republicans, so they do everything possible to prevent the populace from learning. I fear they will continue to be successful in this endeavor.

  57. @Progressive Millenial Voter This is hard to do when we have a business culture that calls for unthinking, easily manipulated automatons.

  58. This could perhaps be a step in the right direction, but I would love to see the conversation return to how Facebook allows organizations like Cambridge Analytica to run data-driven election campaigns that subvert democracy.

  59. Too little too late, Mr. Zuckerberg. When it suits your purposes, you position Facebook as a "platform" — an open-to-all graffiti wall that anyone can write on and for which your questionable company has no responsibility content-wise. Now you are trying to inch into "publisher" territory (but not without having a retinue of lawyers ensure that Facebook bears no real responsibility for what is published there). You say that you want "to support journalism directly." I'm skeptical. This essay has "PR" written all over it. I suspect the motivation behind this essay is damage-control: with your aging and dwindling user base, with lawmakers and with the media themselves.

  60. Facebook is an American disaster. Facebook takes other people's content and gets rich off of it. Facebook produces nothing of itself. Facebook's does not allow you to delete your account. You can park your account but it can never be deleted. Facebook keeps all your personal information and does not delete it...ever. Facebook was started as a way for men to rate women on their looks. Political ads can be 100% false and Facebook admits they will still publish it. The smartest people I know have never had a Facebook account.

  61. @PeaceLove - I also don’t understand why political campaigns still buy ads on Facebook. If you don’t agree with Facebook’s policing, then don’t support them.

  62. @PeaceLove " The smartest people I know have never had a Facebook account " Thanks for the compliment ... and I agree completely

  63. @PeaceLove While I agree, I wonder why people have never once questioned thw credit reporting agencies using our data in all sorts of ways. And Equifax's hacking? Come on, America, TransUnion, Experian and Equifax have all your data and make so much money from it. Where is our cut?

  64. This is all well and good, except that the amount budgeted is a pittance. Also people confuse ads that look like news with news. Predatory political operatives seed Facebook with such "alternative facts," and because of this we're losing our democracy. Please make a commitment, NOW, to reject advertising that promotes lies and distorts our democratic process.

  65. If facebook could develop a way to pay authors and publishers for what I want to read and if the cut was not very high so most all of the revenue went to the authors and publishers I would join Facebook in a minute. Zuckerberg has hit on what is my greatest fear. It seems at this point that most Americans want to pay for are more movies, TV shows, video games and pro sports. News is basically what the Kardashians are or are not wearing or how the Russians have put a brain stimulator in Trump, Warren, Sanders and Gabbard. Men in Black, a movie, told us where our secret services are getting their information.

  66. Mr. Zuckerberg, no opinion piece can hide the fact that inactions from Facebook’s side are causing the democracy to crumble. Profiting from an election cycle is ok, except when willingly looking the other direction when plain lies are being sold to the specific target groups that Facebook can reach. I for one will never trust Facebook anymore.

  67. @Ton van der Liet Facebook isn't the only cause Democracy is crumbling (it's high on the list though). The Erdogans, Trumps, Putins, Johnsons, Kims, etc., and the U.S. Republicans play an enormous role in it. Toss in a little hatred, racism and denial of human rights and, yep, that just about does it.

  68. You have opened Pandora's box already. Nothing will fix the problem Facebook has created short of the elimination of Facebook.

  69. @Joe Great point! Because if Facebook is eliminated, it's not like anything will come to replace it.

  70. @Jack Sarcasm noted, and almost certainly many would try, but how many could grow like Facebook did when it was the only game in town? Hard to imagine a single social network having the reach and domination of FB.

  71. So essentially you are giving money to your most vocal critical voices? And, I suppose that like all good client benefactor relationships, expect Facebook a cit of consideration in return? Say, by not being so outspoken about Facebook’s myriad issues... like the corrosive part it plays in our national and international politics? After all, once it is turned on, nobody wants the money faucet turned off.

  72. Dear Mr. Zuckerberg, I do not have a Facebook account. After visiting websites that are not part of my normal browsing habits I clean out all cookies left by Facebook in my web browser. Your company sells no products, nor provides for free, any services that are of interest to me.

  73. Once bitten, twice shy. News organizations have learned the hard way that if you rely on Facebook for exposure, your revenue is pegged to the whims of the algorithm of the week.

  74. There are so many ways this man, with billions of dollars, could personally support local news. There are so many ways this man's company could create a more informed society. Yet, how does he choose to go about it? Integration into his platform which, while he purports is solely to help journalists, further ingratiates Facebook deeper into american's daily lives. To Mark: When is enough, enough? When do you step back and say, maybe facebook shouldn't be involved in THIS aspect of daily life. First it's social media, then its news, then its currency. For what? What more could you possibly need. Let this go. I get that you want to prove your creation can be an instrument for good. I get that this isn't just about money, but about the idea that you can make facebook a better place by proactively controlling the news, instead of reflexively defending censuring it. But if we have learned anything in the past 4 years, it's that facebook isn't a good sphere for civic discourse. It's also shown that you have your own interests, and fiduciary responsibilities, that make you a poor arbiter for what constitutes quality news. Maybe, if you had a track record of honesty and integrity, this would be met with greater fan fair. But after selling user data, allowing hateful rhetoric to flourish, and accepting dollars for false poltical advertisements, its clear this is a bad idea.

  75. Facebook is the publisher, not it's members. The mere existence of it's code of conduct shows that they retain the right and power to choose what to allow. Facebook must be held responsible.

  76. unfortunately, i feel unable to place my trust in an individual & an organization which has done so much to enable a fog of misinformation to descend upon, not only my national home, but indeed most of the world.

  77. Once again, you have understated your responsibility to your customers and country. When a company like yours possesses the ability to affect the continuation of our democracy, you face more than "a responsibility to engage with good-face criticism". A more accurate statement would be: You face a moral imperative to use your vast resources to get out in front of the externalities that do objective harm to our country. If you are not the right person for this job, please find someone who is. If you cannot find such a person, voters will elect someone to do it for you.

  78. Mr. Zuckerberg says that Facebook News will be "curated by a team of diverse and seasoned journalists". Seems pretty vague. It would be great to get a definition of what that means to Facebook.

  79. Facebook must stop accepting paid political advertisements if they refuse to fact check them. And they can't fact check them so they must stop.

  80. Facebook is the biggest purveyor of false and misleading "news" stories that there has ever been. It is a for-profit toxic data mining enterprise taking personal information and weaponizing it for advertisers, political parties and fringe groups. It is poisoning social bonds instead of creating them. Zuckerberg can pretend to himself that he is a source for good in the world but we aren't falling for it. Facebook has had a huge hand in undermining democracy in the Western world; its bandaid goodwill initiatives like "helping the news business" are propaganda and will not alter its malignant effects.

  81. I hope we'll all outlive, and look back, at lessons learned during the "Facebook phenomena." To be fair, the underlying issues dwarf Facebook itself, and maybe we are midway through a global fever over the immediacy of technology, with all its addictive aspects and sloppy (maybe dangerous) effects. Meatspace interaction and trust-building in communities are diminished in a culture of five-flavor emoticon reactions, algorithmic reinforcement of politics and social sorting, and the eerie feeling that our lives online somehow matter more than our physical lives together. Someday, just like digital recording (vinyl is back), or CGI effects (pie-plate flying saucers are cool again) we will all still have our phones, but it will be inculcated in our minds that the form and content is "cheap." And that, that ain't good. I bought the paper once, and now I buy it in digital form. the quality of my reading is enhanced by the lack of ads when I pay. Eventually I hope to see a world of successful and diverse non-ad-revenue driven social media which we'll pay for. Mark, you may feel sincere in your mission to do good things, or correct as you go, but it isn't exaggeration to say that Facebook is the most monolithic business ever created in the history of the world. No joke; It is that through algorithmic distributions, and through all the aspects of the site. And I think it is unhealthy for all society everywhere, and I look forward to its future irrelevance or diminishment.

  82. Buried in his article is the main point: "most of our community consistently tells us that they want to see more updates from their friends, family and communities, and less other content. " The ONLY redeeming feature of fb is the positivity of keeping in touch with far flung friends, family, grps, etc. Remember your roots. It is a SOCIAL network. Stay out news. Stay out of currency. Leave that to the professionals. Stop trying to swallow the world.

  83. I am going to take this in good faith until I see otherwise. I applaud Facebook's effort to make changes to make the community better, but will withhold praise till such time the outcomes are clear. Thank you Mark (and the team of specialists who helped write this).

  84. Zuckerburg says if misinformation is posted on Facebook News, his new "high-quality" news tab, its publisher will "no longer appear in the product". That's reasonable, but what about all the other misinformation posted elsewhere on Facebook? The problem is bigger than Facebook. We need to outlaw political disinformation, all known or provable lies with malicious intent, on any public information platform. Democracy doesn't work when too many voters are misinformed.

  85. Seems encouraging you are engaging the journalism world, but it was also very noticeable what you left out of this piece. You mention challenging the powerful, a nice reference to accountability, but not the actual recognition of Facebook's role in "fake news" that the world is waiting for. It seems as if you are trying to make up for the wrongs Facebook has done ,(Is still doing? We wouldn't know because you didn't mention it) and for the time being. we'll have to take it. Cheers to challenging the powerful in the future. See you there.

  86. How about helping with the next elections not being interfered by Russia using your company instead? In so many ways we got Trump thanks to the misinformation planted on your platform targeting American voters, and they are already doing it again.

  87. The timing of Zuckerberg's moment of conscience is telling; Warren threatens to break Facebook up and he's caught on tape being a protectionist of his empire and his profits. I'll believe it when I see it, Mark.

  88. Unfortunately, Facebook represents the lowest common denominator in society. Its a lot like fast food. And as such no matter what you offer your customers, they'll almost all choose the donuts and french fries over the couscous and fruit...

  89. So the plan is to have a robust news tab for 15-20% of Facebooks users for journalists and news sources who will be held to high standards while the other 80-85% of facebooks users will read false advertisements from anyone (including, and notably, politicians) willing to pay enough. This is the problem with our facebook Zuck - you're going to allow lies and false information to swing an election AGAIN in you and your company's favor. John Adams once stated that the two party system was the "greatest political evil under our Constitution." Today Mr. Adams would be wise to amend his position - Facebook is the greatest threat to our democracy.

  90. Zuckerberg is catastrophically naive and disastrously prideful. His once entertaining invention has been corrupted to be the single most useful tool of the forces bent on twisting America into some cross between a religious oligarchy and a Russian client state. His company should be broken up and he himself can never repair the damage he has done.

  91. To whom much is given, much is expected, Pandora. Tell it to the judge.

  92. Sorry, Mr. Z., this isn't good enough. If I understand your plan correctly, it still requires people to log into facebook, which puts more money into your pocket, as you still go on your merry way enabling bad actors to spread misinformation and outright lies. I would appreciate your good intentions more if you got out of the news and political advertising business entirely. You could redeem yourself more if you followed Andrew Carnegie's model. Perhaps regretting his role as a robber baron, he spent the latter part of his life using his immense fortune endowing libraries, and left a lasting legacy. 14:00 EDT, 10/25

  93. Zuckerberg clearly establishes the distinction between news and “high-quality” news. Why make that distinction at all if FB’s position is to remain as hands off as possible regarding quality control and assurance? To me, Zuckerberg knows this and is choosing to ignore his social responsibilities for the the problem he himself has created. This isn’t about free speech it’s about dominance. I’m disappointed the NYT decided to run this piece now. This piece isn’t to repair failures it’s to meant to lull people into a state of acceptance over FB’s eventuality. I guess the rein of rich white men will continue until someone has the wherewithal to say, not on my watch!

  94. How about paying a royalty to the news organizations FaceBook so freely appropriates content from?

  95. But in your benevolence and thirst for truth, you are still happy to take money from politicians and their backers to publish information that you know to be lies - and defamatory lies at that. We're awed by your commitment to democracy.

  96. I don't understand why this doesn't count as "branded content".

  97. @Mark C Best comment yet.

  98. The money that once went to support journalism now goes to my company, but I'm not journalism... right, gotcha. Zuckerberg has been greedy and self serving since the start - has created little of value to our society, and we should believe him now because?

  99. This is a bribe... and it's a trap. Facebook wants to treat news organizations just like it treats its users. They have something that is desirable... the price is giving them the power to use you for their own greedy profit. Instead of letting Zuckerberg hold the reigns on information and the profit from it with little cost to Facebook, Congress has the responsibility to strongly regulate them and their ilk to protect the press and the people... and for once with the actual ability to enforce, instead of leaving them room to weasel out of it.

  100. @John Don't forget that Zuckerberg now also wants to control our monetary system with Facebook Money.

  101. Zuck- You need to learn that Free Speech in the US also means Responsible Speech. You do not encourage any sort of responsibility. One is not allowed in the US to shout “Fire!” in a crowded public space. This is for good reason-the resulting stampede would cause harm to others as people fled seeking safety. Your appearance before Congress, and your unwillingness to answer direct questions about allowing the spread of dishonest, inaccurate speech via FaceBook was, frankly, pathetic. You looked, sounded and behaved like a lying child. FaceBook should be regulated like every other news media company, it should sign a Truth in Advertising pledge, and it should be liable for any-ANY-lies or misinformation it spreads via paid channels. Additionally, it has to do a significantly better job policing the legitimacy of user accounts, the creation of new accounts, and allowing users to see precisely what data is collected about them, the manner of that collection, how it is monetized, and give them the option to opt out, field by field. Anything less would be, well, to actively assist and aid in the spread of lies and disinformation. I don’t think we need that kind of platform in the US. Or anywhere.

  102. When, literally, a run-away train occurs - the answer has NEVER been to throw up our arms and walk away. The NYT would like me to contribute, so they kindly provide this spot for all of us to do so. Same with the Post, WSJ, or even Slate, CNN and Fox. Yet all of them don't just let us post anything. We cannot just launch with lies, racism, profanity, slander, hate, threats or blatant un-truths. They, and wisely so, know that their credibility and future reputation depends on this. So why can't Facebook? Too large some say? Well therein lies the problem. Too troublesome to call out someone's lies? The sites I mentioned do it. At the end of the day, when something stated as being "too much" to handle, then maybe the answer is to just stop.

  103. "Below that, there will be a wider selection of stories that are personalized algorithmically." Will this be based on FB's current algorithims that are looking to keep readers attention glued to their screens or will we get an algorithm that actually values truth and accuracy in what is being reported?

  104. "research suggests people who get their news on social networks are exposed to a wider range of viewpoints." What research is this? Your algorithms ensure people keep getting more of the same thing.

  105. Zuckerberg said the following: "Supporting quality news can also help us fight misinformation. That’s why we’re setting strict standards for publishers to be eligible to appear in Facebook News. If a publisher posts misinformation, it will no longer appear in the product." The problem is that political ads are not considered "news" and the issue that human rights advocates are raising have to do with Facebook's (Zuckergerg's) refusal to regulate "political ads." Zuckerberg either doesn't comprehend or doesn't care that negative expression leads to oppression. In 2017, Psychology Today published an article of mine on this topic titled "Expression Leads to Oppression: Marco Rubio fails to realize that expression is what teaches fear and hate." The following is an excerpt from that article: "Despite what Rubio may believe, [his] rhetoric and policy positions could not be more inconsistent.... Rubio seems not to be self-aware.... Consider the lyrics to Rogers and Hammerstein song from South Pacific titled You've Got to Be Carefully Taught.... Rubio also fails to recognize that expression leads to oppression as a direct result of the fear and hate taught through expression." I guess it was wishful thinking to believe that Mark Zuckerberg might have better critical thinking skills than Marco Rubio. Good critical thinking skills are a combination of IQ level and emotional intelligence. Absent the emotional intelligence aspect, the critical thinking is impaired.

  106. I think it's disingenuous to talk about news on Facebook without touching on how the News Feed is engineered to be a money-making machine — maximizing engagement and treating moderation and integrity as an afterthought. This means pushing polarizing, sensationalized, and highly emotional stories towards the top, and putting a stranglehold on publishers to publish content that's accordingly performance-optimized. Though I'd have serious qualms about Facebook's definition a "team of diverse and seasoned journalists," a curated news surface that's separate from News Feed is a step in the right direction. But the News Feed problem isn'g going anywhere.

  107. Facebook's business model is to draw viewers to his platform and derive information from their actions and then sell that information to interested parties. Out of the goodness of his own heart he now provides another service to keep people on his platform, to mine ever more data from their actions, and make even more money. And for a whole $300 million dollars he is getting others to provide information and content they worked hard to create so that Mark can make more money off of their labors. What a great humanitarian! What I have a hard time figuring out is what his deal really is? Does he just want to be a great and powerful man on a scale not imagined before? Or is he really naive and not understand the dire implications of his actions and chalks the damage up to moving things forward? Or does he think he knows best and that however many missteps he has made that since they were done with an innocent heart they really don't matter? All I know is that his hubris is astounding which may be due to his ability to code (being able to keep track of multiple variables in a ever changing matrix) but sadly he can't comprehend all he believes he does. He is missing too many core variables which he isn't wise enough to perceive.

  108. I support news organizations by going directly to their websites and/or subscribing directly online - and never using Facebook. We've all encountered those who use Facebook as their source of news and information - they are always the least informed, most propagandized and completely unaware of dissenting views as Facebook works on an echo-chamber model of feeding them more of the same.

  109. "...the top stories in Facebook News will be curated by a team of diverse and seasoned journalists. Below that, there will be a wider selection of stories that are personalized algorithmically." I'm sorry Mr. Zuckerberg, but given the track record of Facebook and it's role in spreading stories that are untrue, the idea of obtaining my news via your algorithms is quite disturbing. In my view, the less role you play in my life, or the lives of others, the better.

  110. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the eight most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from Facebook, and I'm here to help."

  111. I don't think we need the advice of someone whose business model is tracking and selling the habits, opinions, and feelings of Facebook users to advertisers.

  112. The whole point of having a front page is to bring information to the reader/viewer that they not necessarily be seeking. This is the platform that truly informs the public. For example, I may not wake up and expect to see a problem with drinking water pollution in Arkansas. But that is something I should know about. Point being, news is comprised of information that people should know about or at least have the opportunity to know about, not what they want to know about or is popular to know about. So if Facebook wants to help journalism, lose this algorithm generated news feed nonsense and feed people a diet of real news. And that would include information they may not want to hear, like the truth for instance.

  113. @Bruce Rozenblit What makes you think that what's on the front page of any respected newspaper isn't generated by an algorithm. Funny you bring up water pollution. Remember the lead water crisis in Flint that made the front page of several newspapers for quite a while? Did you believe that it was only a big problem in Flint? Did you believe it was only a problem in racialized communities, as it was presented? Here's a Reuters investigation into most of the US. It never made the front page of any newspaper, even Reuters' own homepage. It turned out that over 3800 communities (~27 million people) have lead water levels DOUBLE that of Flint. Why didn't that make big news, given that vastly more people were affected? Could it be because the race angle used to bait interest in Flint didn't work for millions of other communities who had it worse? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lead-map/reuters-finds-3810-u-s-areas-with-lead-poisoning-double-flints-idUSKBN1DE1H2 https://www.reuters.com/investigates/graphics/lead-water/en/ And by the way, I didn't find any of this on Facebook or social media. I found it by searching on Google because I took the initiative investigate know the extent of the problem - something that no heavily promoted article addressed.

  114. I can't think of a headline and article that portends more doom for our world than this. Thank you, very cool!

  115. Facebook could stop this entire argument dead in its tracks just by refusing to run all political ads. Mr. Zuckerberg's fortune might be down 1 or 2% but the problem would be gone and the controversy would be over. Ad revenue would be down a couple of points but nothing serious. C'mon Mark, get with the program and just stop running political and campaign ads. Oh, and stop running ads paid for by Russian banks.

  116. @markd's position is correct. I concur completely with his statement.

  117. Your stated FB policy is not to prevent lies in political campaigns. How, then, can we possibly trust you to report news truthfully and objectively?

  118. People might take you seriously if your company would enforce its own standards. As Representative Tlaib so skillfully illustrated, you don't come close. #TryAgain

  119. Who are these editors ("diverse and seasoned journalists") and why should we trust Facebook to "curate" "the most important and high-quality stories"? I'd like to trust but FB has not given us any reason -- even after 2016 it continues to allow the Trump campaign to post misleading ads. At a minimum, trust [maybe] but [always and first] verify. Skeptically yours.

  120. It doesn't seem at all reasonable to believe the wolf, when the wolf tels you he will be the friend of the lamb...Mr Zuckerberg could have been from the very beginning an example of self control. He never did, all the contrary he kept consolidating his huge businesses one after the other minding zero about democratic ethics and the truth, so: fool me once...

  121. Real news organizations have editors and fact checkers to make sure what they publish is accurate. They also have websites and don't need you.

  122. Stop using individual private personal data for massive profits.....fix that!

  123. Stop with the lies. Facebook is great for catching up with friends and family, but as far as news content, you want to destroy the current news model and become the curator of all news to turn a profit. Don't pretend otherwise. It would be one thing if you were committed to only spreading fact checked, truth based content, but the fact that you are perfectly happy to allow paid political advertisements that spew lies and that you listed BREITBART as a trusted news purveyor tells me your motives are not to be trusted in any way shape or form. You and your corporation are a danger to a free and fair nation, economy and world.

  124. In other, more accurate words, Facebook/Zuckerberg will stop ripping off the journalism business for it's own profit. But how much? Huh? And how come it took protest to get Mr. Z to see this and "promise" action? Huh?

  125. I have a plan: REGULATE FACEBOOK!

  126. I think it’s amusing that Mr. Zuckerberg thinks that he will be able to control “misinformation“ from appearing in the new Facebook news feature. Like it’s cousin disinformation, misinformation is not a story cut out of whole cloth. Rather, it is a story that is 98 percent true, with 2 percent or less of the content misleading or false. In the old days, Russian intelligence operatives working under Embassy cover would have to pay a local journalist in a small African or Central American to publish a story that was aimed at discredit in the United States. Today we have such entities as “Russia Today” and “Sputnik” that have their own Facebook pages that lure unsuspecting readers to “like” them and spread their lies. Needless to say, the challenge is far, far more complex and difficult than Mr. Zuckerberg can even imagine.

  127. While I would applaud any effort by Facebook to help journalism, this seems at best a half measure. And of course it all depends on the tender mercies of Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook, who can and have switched course overnight, instantly undermining strategies publishers created to adapt to this Brave New World. In short, journalism remains at the mercy of the company, and that is the problem. While I am as critical as anyone of the company, i think its problems may be beyond the ability of Zuckerberg and company to solve. Facebook is so huge, so pervasive that — like a digital Frankenstein — it is beyond the control of its masters, allowing it to be manipulated by malevolent outsiders who will always remain a step ahead of the site’s administrators. The only real solution seems to be regulation, breakup and/or a major change in the rules under which it operates. One of the most effective changes would be to repeal the part of the communications decency act that exempts Facebook and other websites from legal liability for content posted by third parties. This may have made sense in the 1990s but no longer does. Giving people the right to sue Facebook or twitter when a misinformation news site posts defamatory information about them would create a powerful financial incentive to block and take down such content and finally clean up the site. Bottom line: this may or may not help, but it is at best a band aid when drastic surgery is needed.

  128. Zuckerberg’s proposals do not explicitly depend upon what “news” is, fortunately, because his understanding of “news” is on a par with his understanding of “free speech” and how they both (should) differ from propaganda.

  129. The best thing anybody can do with Facebook is stop using it.

  130. I don't exactly think the conversation in the boardroom went the way as presented here. More like: Hey, by having all these news outlets on our website, we get to keep the public's attention, and potential involvement in our other activities, and for the minimal "advertising" fee that we pay to the news people. Aaaand it'll look like we're interested in also bettering society. Hahahahah

  131. We can trust Zuckerberg as much as we trust Trump: not a bit

  132. Facebook is a cesspool of mis-information and pilfered content, built on bilking people of their personal information and profiting off of content creators like news organizations. Facebook should also be ashamed for the role it has played in both the US election and the British Brexit vote. Congratulations, Mr. Zuckerberg for all the money you made. May your family be forever ashamed for the mess you have created.

  133. Mr. Suckerberg, "research suggests people who get their news on social networks are exposed to a wider range of viewpoints." Excuse me? What research? Could you please cite your sources, like a good journalist does? So now your white hat is that you, single handedly, are going to preserve freedom of the press. Your article veered all over the place and I have no idea what your actual implementation would be. Why don't you sell Facebook, take the profits and invest them in existing organizations that help maintain freedom of the press, and protect journalists. Facebook really needs to go away. I think it would be best for the world if you shut it down or sold it off.

  134. Facebook‘s unquenchable thirst for money, I am convinced, will one day lead it to propose installing telescreens in our homes, akin to those in George Orwell‘s 1984.

  135. @David H Apparently the other beast, Amazon, has already done it with Alexa.

  136. "I believe deeply in the social good that journalism provides." Mr. Zuckerberg, it is too bad you can't get you head around the fact that you platform produces so much social harm, including undermining solid journalism by permitting blatantly false and libelous political adds. Then again, it is probably not an intellectual failing on your part. Its more the consequence of the priority you put on your pocket book over morality and social good.

  137. Sorry, dude, you have no interest in helping anyone but yourself. I'll get the news directly from the newspapers I subscribe to without your surveillance machine spying on me. It surprises me that any reputable news organization would cooperate with Facebook in this cynical reputation whitewashing venture.

  138. Stunning! Facebook reacts! In his best Trumpian rhetoric, Zuk pretends to be cutting edge when each belated, modest, compensatory gesture made in the last decade smells of ineptitude. Experience can yield wisdom. Yet, in Zuk's case, having started with the misguided assumption that he created his own cresting wave, his hubris leaves him merely an aging surfer without a decent board and an embarrassingly limited comprehension of the changing sea. Continual efforts to mitigate the platform's inadequacies merely reveal the failures of his leadership, the limits of his understanding of the implications of his attempts, and the peril of further patience with his failures. Odd that he should now feign to champion the 4th Estate when he devoted years to affirming its irrelevance relative to his social networking miasma. Perhaps when the House enjoys the leisure to address the matter, the Senate writes rules so that a do-nothing majority leader cannot obstruct all but his personal agenda, and the next President, who is apt to actually have a conscience, the necessary oversight and regulation will emerge. Until then, faith in arrogant fools such as Zuk leave folks imperiled. The out-sized influence of his passe platform again leaves our republic in jeopardy. When you are complicit with permitting the problem to persist, doing so for years, you are not the right person to provide a remedy, much less reassure the public, given your bankrupt ethics and record of failure.

  139. What is wrong with me? I don't have a Facebook account and would never want one. Last night a neighbor started to tell me where she got her huge free big screen t.v. As soon as I heard her say, "there is this Facebook page", I wanted to hear no more. If I want to stay in touch with long lost friends I can email or pick up the phone. If I want to notify the family of everything my pet does, I can set up a simple contact list in email or just build my own site for next to nothing. Zuckerberg offers nothing but false news and tons of tracking, etc. Why would I even want to be in same room with this guy? If you are still on Facebook, I don't want to hear any whining. There is nothing holding you back from leaving...except good luck deleting your account. They refuse to do so. I have tried for several years and even wrote to my State Attorney General.

  140. @tom harrison So which is it? You say you "don't have a Facebook account and would never want one." And then say you "have tried for several years and even wrote to your State Attorney General" about deleting your account. It's like saying "I'm a vegan, always have been, but I'm struggling to cut meat out of my diet."

  141. Markie, Markie, the ghost you hired writes well. On your latest game, do you realize if the SEC, etc., approve that scheme, there's a good chance you will be ruled to be a SIFI? (ask one of your lawyers what that is. Put it this way, Met Life sued to not be one; GE spent billions in reorganizing itself so it no longer was one). In that case there will be examiners from the Fed parked permanently at your headquarters asking all sorts of mean questions which you can't evade by putting on a suit.

  142. True, but that doesn't matter if at the same time you destroy our democracy and polity. Both parties should immediately introduce legislation making Facebook criminally liable for any slander and/or libel posted on their website. The penalties should extend to the members of Facebook's Board of Directors, with jail time for permitting slanderous or libelous comments comments to be posted. Dan Kravitz

  143. As with most Zuckerberg communiques, this reads like a sales pitch. So what is he selling? Links to a curated selection of news outlets. What does Facebook get in return? He wants you to think this is a public service endeavor (“ We don’t take any cut of the subscription revenue because we want as much of the revenue as possible to go toward funding quality journalism.”). But FB follows the user, and FB knows which news outlet the user chose. That is highly marketable information. As always, when you shake hands with FB, be sure to count your fingers. It’s great that FB is throwing money at local newspapers, but I can’t see how that will help revive a fatally ill patient. Media conglomeration is what destroyed my local newspaper, and that is true for local papers across the country. You can monetize the heck out of a newspaper, but if the content is nothing but packaged wire stories and promotional pieces for local businesses, few people are going to subscribe. I want in a local regular reporting on city council and county supervisor meetings. A police blotter. What’s going on in the courts. All of that is missing, now. What we get is a feature story and filler. Finally, a note to Mr. Zuckerberg, who is trying to improve his public image. Do not preface statements this way: “As someone who is married to a pediatrician...“. Everyone cares about babies. Being the spouse of a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor, or more sensitive, or perspicacious. Stick to your own job.

  144. I'd like to know what Zuckerberg and Trump talked about at their recent meeting. Somehow, I think Trump conned him in one way or another.

  145. @Stephen Who conned whom? They probably just played thumb wars and laughed hysterically.

  146. Mark Zuckerberg wrote: "This model establishes a long-term financial partnership between publishers and Facebook for the first time. [...] We now have multiyear partnerships with ABC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, The Dallas Morning News and many more publishers." ^ Isn't it sweet of Mr. Zuckerberg to do this out of the goodness of his heart? Gee, I wonder what the motivation behind this proposed "long-term financial partnership between [newspaper] publishers and Facebook" could be? Let's see... The press has been criticizing Facebook on a daily basis. Facebook will now give some of its revenue to the press. In return, Facebook hopes the press will dial down the criticism. Indeed, as the traditional revenue model for newspapers becomes unsustainable, newspapers may increasingly rely on Facebook for revenue. And we all know what Facebook will expect in return: Mollified criticism and glowing op-eds. Will this scheme work? Probably. We'll see.

  147. @Sándor it HAS worked: we're learning about this latest facebook facehug by way of the very "glowing op-ed" you mention. it's right here, on the times website, written by zuck himself. if you're mark zuckerberg, it'd be just about impossible to write a better scenario.

  148. Far more than a socially clueless billionaire who has never seen a bit of my personal data he didn’t want to ensnare in his ever-expanding grasp, I trust my well-informed fellow citizens who read a serious newspaper every day and offer thoughtful comments. And from those comments, they don’t think much of you or your PR stunts masquerading as self-regulation. I’ll take the good old fashioned kind of regulation, thank you very much, and look forward to seeing President Warren propose them in her first hundred days in office.

  149. Sounds like new and old media getting in bed together hoping for a better outcome when neither have the incentive, commitment or personnel to deliver the type of journalism being promised. Yes, there are exceptions but journalists today are expert at passing on information provided by press releases and spin doctors. The "serious" journalism discussed here is really just the slightly edited spin from the wealthy and powerful.

  150. "Supporting quality news can also help us fight misinformation. That’s why we’re setting strict standards for publishers to be eligible to appear in Facebook News. If a publisher posts misinformation, it will no longer appear in the product." The third sentence seems to imply an entire publisher can be rejected from the platform if it publishes "misinformation." Although it's very unclear: is the "it" no longer appearing in the product the publisher or the misinformation? Those are two radically different things. What are the specific standards for publishers to be ineligible for Facebook News? Is ineligibility permanent? Are there standards for censoring specific content? Who's going to be interpreting them? Read one way publishers will be wholesale ejected from the platform for publishing any "misinformation," and read another specific content may be censored. I also can't help but notice the use of the word "misinformation" over "disinformation." Misinformation includes any false or inaccurate information regardless of intention. So if Zuckerberg means what he says, FB will eject publishers from the platform for making factual mistakes, which are inevitable in the daily news business. Who's eligible to distribute news on this service and what regulations will govern their content are the most important questions an operation like this; the lack of commitment to clarity bodes ill for the future.

  151. so facebook is going to be a clearing house, determining what is and what isn't high quality news for its massive user base? gee, what could go wrong? this company is out of control.

  152. It's stunning how surprised everyone is when the CEO of a company behaves like a CEO. He has a fiduciary responsibility to Facebook. He has shareholders. He has stakeholders. He is simply doing his job, and he's good at it. And, by the way, I believe him when he speaks. He is articulate, intelligent and, yes, flawed, just like everyone else. I, for one, am willing to keep an open mind when I listen to him.

  153. Mark. I would like to offer some honest criticism. Facebook is an incredible platform for making connections and building communities. It's also a THE perfect platform for the spread of 'disinformation' (i.e. lies, conspiracy theories, etc.). Until Facebook takes the responsibility to curate news seriously it will be a target for disinformation and much deserved criticism. Do I have all the answers? No. But I suggest you get your smartest people together with the smartest people, in the news business, and hash this out. The future of our Democracy depends on it!

  154. Unlike, unfriend, whatever it takes to make this man and his company simply go. a. way. Boycott facebook. It's rather simple to do. Hit 'em where it hurts. If there are no users there is no ad revenue and it will wither on the vine.

  155. I do not trust you. I am concerned that in some way this is an attempt to take over the news business as part of a three year/five year/one year plan to gain further control of whatever you can. Stop lying, stop letting others lie, providing “quality” news is not going to fix what you broke. You have to do the right thing. I do not need to hear the opinions of people who get their opinions directly from liars.

  156. I would consider your embarrassing performance in front of the House Financial Services Committee this week to be the only “high quality” content you can generate.

  157. @Stella High comedy?

  158. Want to save journalism on Facebook? Start charging an annual fee as a form of identity verification. It discourages sockpuppets from proliferating and curbs abuse. These accounts cost nothing to make now and sow the appearance of grassroots-level opinion swaying, especially when it comes to mobbing left-leaning news coverage as a form of Agitprop. Also, it will have the side effect of making people think twice about parading to your inane platform for stolen memes and relentless baby photos, likely causing a massive user dropoff. A win-win!

  159. Another classic case of tech bros believing they are entitled to be involved in industries that they don’t actually comprehend in the slightest. No thank you.

  160. When you are in control of a platform that speaks to about 1 billion people around the world in a climate where people are passing around false and potentially damaging information and don't do anything about it you are as bad as the enemies of truth. You hold a responsibility to not just the Country that gave you the tools to be able to create the Facebook platform and grow it, but to your customers around the world and if you can't handle that responsibility you need to bow out. I as a citizen prefer my country's safety over my ability to socialize and so should you. Be careful which side of truth and morality you choose to fall on because that will be your legacy forever.

  161. Unfortunately, unlike the legitimate news services from which money is being diverted to Facebook, Facebook has no content guidelines. You're basically a propaganda market, willing to sell space to whichever disinformation campaigns are willing to pay. Facebook played a big role in helping Trump and his Russian benefactors steal the last election, and you're unapologetically preparing to do it again. Bottom line: if you're on Facebook, you're a dupe, and you should delete your account immediately.

  162. you're not fixing things, zuckerberg. you're taking advantage of them.

  163. Wow, the chutzpah... This pledge to “fight misinformation” from the man at the helm of the vastest obfuscating machine the world has ever suffered. His ardent defense of the first amendment bizarrely reminds me of the second amendment fanatics. The founding fathers were thinking of flintlock muskets, not AR-15s. Likewise, freedom of speech makes sense within certain historical and technological conditions that contemplate newspapers, pamphlets, and soap boxes. But wen ONE single person reaches BILLIONS, this ceases to be a problem of freedom of speech. It becomes a problem of monopolization. No one should wield this kind of power—and then hide behind cozy notions of egalitarianism, objectivity, and free speech. There should be a limit both to profit and reach. Break Facebook up. America has done it before (standard oil comes to mind). The amount of power concentrated on Zuckerberg is proof that it’s time for us to fix and update our democracy.