While it appears as though your question is framed to get the answer that a non-profit could do Facebook's task better, there are other options. The core question is: is a social network compatible with news? There are other for-profit models that can work. A simple variation is not to use algorithmic presentation of the news feed at all and allow users to select the news they want to see, and to show all the news about the topic in the feed.
This method has its own issues. For example, I run a bunch of of newsfeeds about entrepreneurs, (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos etc) on LinkedIn and fairly often I get people complaining that they don't want to see negative news about the entrepreneur -- they only want to see positive news. They describe themselves as fans. I tell them that the won't understand the subject if they don't expose themselves to news they don't like.
But think about that on Facebook - this negative news does not get shared, and there's no proper way to say, "this is negative but interesting", the best you've got is the "angry" emoticon. And you only see what Facebook want you to see. They turned off the option to view your feed by most recent items, not because it was difficult to follow, but because it made more money for them.
So there are ways to fix these issues, but the cost is that you lose some readers and you lose some money. But for those who remain the experience is better - they are getting informed, not entertained. In its entire life Facebook has always put greed before user experience, so there's no way any of this will change.
> The core question is: is a social network compatible with news?
I understand the value of this question but it's not the core of the problem as I understand.
Consider the progression of facebook as a platform. I hope my lack of eloquence won't hurt my point too much, not a native english speaker. Facebook was a valuable service when keeping track of one's social circle was still an analogic problem. Since we the public saw the value in digitizing the 'book keeping' of socialisation, we invested time into the platform to constitute a social group, architected as we saw fit.
This at least was the experience of the early days of facebook for me and people I know. I imagine you share it to some degree.
Compare that function to what the same company is pushing now. Their business is still acquiring user's time but they now have pivoted enough that the social book keeping aspect is quite secondary to most of the business layer of the company as far as I can tell.
I have no business analysing whether focusing on information diffusion control is a good strategy for Facebook the company, I have no idea. The point that concerns me is that the users are now chained along because of time invested in the past.
We as users should insist on having the social book keeping available as a low level (open source/GPL/WTFPL) platform on top of which one could choose to enhance that experience as is the business of information outlets. I have no issue with companies choosing profit over UX, but we the public should protest in some form or other while we still more or less have a choice.
Again, I was arguing that the company doesn't need to exist. They showed the public a new use of information technologies and executed their expansion admirably. However, since saturation of the initial (rich/western) target population they have been steadily removing value from the platform that got people excited.
Why should they be assured of revenue if their business is bait and switch?
And they obviously are. Facebook has been trying to address these issues, and has made missteps on the way. They wouldn't have issued the statements they have if they weren't concerned about it. I'd be really surprised if they're happy with the current situation and are going to just stop working on it.
Maybe they're not working fast enough or in the way you want them to. But it's helpful to recognize that they're human, too. The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years. Coupled with the novelty of online communities, it's not something I expect them to figure out overnight.
It's good that you admit that you don't have answers to these questions. I don't either. Which is why I'm very slow to make statements like Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. It just doesn't recognize the reality of the situation as I understand it.
While I agree that its an extremely complicated problem to solve, I would be more inclined to believe they are trying to solve it if they took responsibility for (at least some of) them, instead of saying:
"We don’t favor specific kinds of sources — or ideas. Our aim is to deliver the types of stories we’ve gotten feedback that an individual person most wants to see."
Of course they could be working behind closed doors, while PR spins its yarn, in which case I wish them best of luck. It would be interesting to see how they solve it.
I understand the desire to have Facebook and others take a stronger or more explicit statement of intent or purpose. That said, no matter what they say, some are going to call them out as being disingenuous, that it's just PR. At this point I'm just interested in specifics of what they're going to do.
>The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years
But this time its much more hurting than before because we know more now and shouldnt let bad things happen because of a company's business decisions.
Obviously this is something you care about. I suggest you take some time, do some research, and spend some serious time thinking of concrete steps Facebook could take, and more importantly what you can do to help make the changes you want to see. At the end of the day, it's people that make changes. Expecting others to make those changes for you is likely to lead to more frustration for you. Be well, and good luck!
In my opinion, you have it backwards. It's not about what anyone can do with/about the platform. The center of the issue is that facebook/google et al are selling convenience to the public who assumes the platforms are to some extent trustable.
I think you might be reading too much into what I've said. When I talk about individual action, I'm talking about that in all realms: on the site, in person with other people, in their communities, what projects they work on, how they choose to engage in politics: How they can actually make the change they want to see. And that includes taking a stance on how to engage with Facebook et al. IMO the solution to "the public who assumes the platforms are to some extent trustable" has to center around peer-to-peer education of self-responsibility, critical thinking, and choice.
