How Social Media Makes Money
Social media companies sell advertising.
More views = more ads shown = more revenue.
So they want you on the app as long as possible, looking at as much content as possible.
The entire business model is: maximize views and traffic.
What Gets Views?
Not calm content. Not accurate content. Not nuanced content.
Provocative content gets views.
Content that makes you angry. Content that scares you. Content that outrages you.
You stop scrolling. You react. You share it. You argue about it.
That's engagement. Engagement means more views. More views means more money.
Same effort. Same platform. Wildly different results.
Provocation wins. Every time.
Lies Are Provocative
What's more provocative than a lie?
A calm, accurate statement doesn't make you react. A scary, exaggerated, false claim does.
True Statement
- Boring
- Complicated
- Full of caveats
- You scroll past
False Claim
- Simple
- Scary
- Shareable
- You stop and react
Lies generate engagement. Engagement generates views. Views generate money.
So Social Media Amplifies Provocative Content
The algorithm sees a post getting engagement. It doesn't ask: "Is this true?" It asks: "Are people clicking?"
Lots of clicks? Push it to more people.
The algorithm can't tell the difference between "people are clicking because this is important" and "people are clicking because this is outrageous and false."
A lie that makes people angry gets pushed to millions.
A correction that's accurate but boring gets buried.
The algorithm amplifies provocation. Lies are provocative. So lies get amplified.
No Incentive to Stop
Social media companies have no incentive to slow down or remove lies.
Why would they? Lies are provocative. Provocative content gets views. Views make money.
Removing lies would mean less provocation. Less provocation means less engagement. Less engagement means less views. Less views means less money.
The incentive is to keep the lies flowing.
The Loop
The Result
The people who lie get views. The platforms that spread lies get paid. The only people who lose are the ones being lied to.
Why Is This Legal?
If a company paid people to commit fraud, we'd prosecute them.
If a business model depended on spreading perjury, we'd shut it down.
But a company that profits from amplifying lies to millions of people? Protected speech.
The People Lying Face No Consequences Either
It's not just the platforms. The individuals posting lies face no accountability.
A car salesman who lies about a vehicle's history? Goes to court.
A witness who lies under oath? Goes to prison.
A company that lies about its products? Faces the FTC.
A person who lies to millions on social media? Nothing happens.
The lie reaches more people than any fraud case in history. The damage is greater. And the consequence is... nothing.
Deliberate deception should have consequences. Not just for platforms. For the people doing the lying.
We already accept this principle everywhere else in law. Fraud, perjury, false advertising, securities fraud. In every domain where we've thought carefully about it, we've concluded that knowingly false statements deserve punishment.
Social media is the exception. The one domain where lies cause the most damage is the one domain where lying is free.
The Question
We're not asking: "Should we censor speech?"
We're asking: "Should companies profit from amplifying lies?"
Those are different questions.
The lie can exist. But maybe the platform shouldn't get paid to spread it. That's not censorship. That's accountability.
Related: Why Lying Shouldn't Be Free Speech