Time to scrutinize Facebook's algorithms — and what social media do to us

Time to scrutinize Facebook's algorithms — and what social media do to us 

A few decades ago, historians were worried that few wrote letters or kept diaries in the modern era so that future historians would not be able to see what people thought. Then came social media. As to algorithms, they only matter if you read your newsfeed and react to it. This is all done in the open. The question is how it links to advertising, so the Federal Trade Commission may have cause to look at how the algorithms work, except to the extent that trade secrets are involved. Such secrets cannot simply be laid bare because Nervous Nellies want to see them. Usually to view such secrets, there must be cause related to unfair activity. It's a hard sell. 

While terrorists, both foreign and domestic, use Facebook groups to communicate, the insurrectionists mainly used Parler. Parler no longer exists and its entire content was captured and is being used to find bad actors. The Insurrectionists  also had a nasty habit of getting into debates on Twitter. My feed from early January includes a discussion with one of these fools that laid out there strategy, including their view that Trump could declare martial law under, ironically enough, the Insurrection Act, in order to stay in power. 

These people were none too wise. They had no understanding of the 12th Amendment, which sets out how Electoral Votes are counted and who wins. There is no magic number. It changes with the number of votes that are eligible. Even if the congressional side of the conspiracy succeeded, Biden would still have won with 232 electoral votes to Trump's 208. The sole arbiter of what the total is is the Speaker of the House and her majority. 

I told my interlocutor that there was no hope - but desperation thrives on hope. By the way, all conspirators are responsible for the crimes of other conspirators, so there will be members of Congress going to jail. The irony is that the whole thing was designed for Trump to take advantage of some imaginary immunity that he really did not have, although the media still says otherwise and prosecutors did not push the point. This was malpractice in both cases. Neither is capable of even understanding Facebook's algorithms, let alone regulating them.

To look at Facebook's trade secrets, there must be a civil suit or criminal prosecution to force either discovery or investigation. Finding a legitimate cause for either is a tough sell. Facebook is likely cooperating with the FBI on domestic terrorism (but neither will ever confirm this, for obvious reasons). Even filing a civil suit is an even tougher sell - and it would involve one user suing another user or users for what is said in voluntary,semi-public communication. If such communication is harmful, it can be shut off by logging out. 

It is up to parents to take away devices and block websites in cases of Internet bullying. Sensitive children who can be bullied online are also susceptible to the in person kind. Looking at Facebook's algorithms won't suddenly make such children emotionally resilient. We have not yet cracked the code in how to do this generally.

Bottom line, regulating Facebook is about as likely as protecting the unborn through the criminal law. It is simply not a thing that can be done. Theologians should not try to do it. What is more likely is Facebook suing NCR for the graphic accompanying this article as a trademark violation. They could not win because it is part of protected speech. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.