A recent  article in Fortune discusses how Facebook, after launching it’s ‘Journalism Project‘ in January 2017 as a way to fight fake news, has just over six months in, released a progress update.

Facebook reports that it has met with thousands of publishers, and as a result of those meetings rolled out new features such as “call to action” buttons that encourage users to follow or sign up for email newsletters from specific outlets. It also plans to test a news subscription service in the fall, setting up a paywall for certain news articles at the request of publishers. To limit the reach of news from non-reputable publishers, propagandists or astroturfers, Facebook has suggested that it is limiting access to add buying from accounts they identify as spammers, and reports  reducing the number of posts that link to “low quality web page experiences”. Finally, they’re currently testing ways for users to report fake news, and they’re partnering with major universities to create education programs encouraging news literacy.

I’m pleased that Facebook has been owning up to its role in spreading fake news and propaganda, but very skeptical about the methods it’s using to do so. For example, while a paywall makes the major publishers happy, paywalls have proven thus far to be ineffective and reduce audience size to major publishers. Furthermore, a lack of transparency in what a low quality web page experience entails could limit the reach of important and real news that is not backed by a major publisher, or could limit the reach of important and meaningful message from civil society and social justice groups. The report fake news button is something that is almost certain to be misused by trolls, with people reporting as fake anything that they do not agree with, or any post by someone they’d like to silence. Finally, while digital literacy is extremely important, offering news literacy courses at top Universities will increase the difference between the information habits of the haves and have-nots, rather than addressing the problem in a democratic way.

So what’s a major online platform to do? Well, this is a pretty major issue, and may not have a simple solution, but perhaps Facebook, rather than curating people’s news feeds based on interest, needs to figure out how to curate based on other criteria, such as community or civic relevance. Perhaps, rather than meeting publishers about new ways to make people pay for news on Facebook, Facebook should be required to give back to non-profit local and regional news outlets who can offset the flood of fake and propagandized social media information. Facebook makes so much money off the content people contribute to it, that it really has no interest in stemming the tide of that content too much, whether it’s fake or otherwise. Thus, I think a strong policy position needs to be taken in countries around the world, to ensure that Facebook does not detract from communities, but instead becomes a part of them. This could mean that Facebook is required to give news feed and advertising space to public interest media in each region, or it could be that Facebook must donate money to public media in each country according to the number of citizens on Facebook in each country. The precise method of giving back can be negotiated, but some responsibility must fall on this platform which currently maintains an attention monopoly in most of the world.