• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, December 14, 2017

Interesting read in Bloomberg Businessweek this week on how Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte (one of the few heads of states worse than Trump) manipulated Facebook posts to con his people (for whom Facebook is the primary source of news) and eliminate political rivals.

While Trump limps along with childish Twitter outbursts (happily amplified by the media), Duterte jumped in with both feet, creating tons of fake or misleading content to sway public opinion. Seems he and the Russians have similar playbooks.

While Roy Moore supporters proved beyond a doubt that facts aren't necessarily an antidote to anger and ignorance, I still wonder, will the truth matter at all in the future?

The internet and social media are not going away. It's beyond the scope of reason to expect that tech/media companies can eliminate everything that skirts the truth, especially now that we, as a nation, have come to believe the truth is pretty subjective to begin with.

What has emerged in place of traditional media coverage is the notion that if you don't like what is being reported, you simply label it fake news and dismiss it. This is a favorite White House tactic whenever the increasingly tone-deaf and shrill Sarah Huckabee Sanders is asked a question about Trump's behavior that even she can't rationalize.

Because there is so much fake news out there now, this doesn't sound as outrageous as it is. Around the world, politicians are piling on, labeling everything they don't like (or perhaps hits too close to home) as fake.

Have we reached a new norm, where propaganda and purposely generated fake news are so pervasive that we just accept them as part of the canvas? If so, then are we also seeing the end of social media as we know it today?

Just as publications have shut down their anonymous comments sections because they devolve quickly into personal attacks or hateful screeds, so too should people start to abandon platforms where content has become simply a cesspool of disinformation and echo chambers. Folks should be thinking, "If I can't trust these guys, I'll just go elsewhere."

Clickbait was the perfect example. It took us all a handful of tries before we realized that clickbait headlines were not delivering on their enticements, so we stopped going to sites that promised perpetual titillation in the form of listicles and "wait until you see them now" photos.

My youngest argues that Facebook is too big and ingrained in society for folks to abandon it in numbers that would put the platform on notice.

I am less convinced. I could envision a platform "for the rest of us" that is highly policed and restricts postings to legitimate news and moderated discussions.

One might argue that is already the mission of apps from traditional news organizations, while Facebook offers a wide range of functionalities that make it the single most compelling town square for the world.

Will this become an economic issue, with those who can afford it moving to platforms that are clean, well-lit environments, leaving behind those who are too uninformed to realize that much of what they see is compromised -- or can't afford the clean, well-lit environments?

We had all hoped this fake business would reach an inflection point where we said, "OK, enough of this bullshit." But the polarization of our society continues unabated (no thanks to that moron in Washington) -- and I'm not sure there's a "going back" anymore.