Facebook – a unifier and divider

Facebook has become news once again, and that’s a profound statement. The news has come in the form of a debate in the mainstream media over how much news Facebook should be allowed to disseminate, how the concept of “news” has changed thanks to the popular social media tool, and how Facebook’s monopolistic power will become a threat to the “ideal” nature of news.
The questions are legitimate, considering the growing role of Facebook in the way people of this era absorb information. What sparked the debate was a comment by a conventional media personality. Jon Snow, a famous English newsreader and journalist, expressed concern in a recent speech that Facebook and Google were becoming too powerful in terms of generating information, so much so that the two can turn into a threat to democracy.
“Never since the rise of the printing press have two companies held such a monopoly over the world’s information,” he told his industry audience, aiming his harshest criticism at Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO.
It’s true that Facebook enables news organisations to reach young viewers in a way that television and radio cannot, Snow said, but he added that such a reach can be a double-edged sword, particularly with “fake news” thrown in. He pointed to a bogus news story which claimed that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump for the US presidency. It engaged a million people on Facebook.
“Facebook has a moral duty to prioritise veracity over virality. It is fundamental to our democracy,” Snow said. In his opinion, Facebook has not done enough in this regard, which could prove a serious threat to democracy.
We can be afraid, or we can think the comment is a bit unfair. Sharing politicised news information was certainly not Zuckerburg’s idea when Facebook was first conceived. And when it comes to politics, Zuckerburg has been seen as using his “reach” for good causes, like when he recently tried to protect children of illegal immigrants who were targeted by Trump’s nationalistic campaign.
The utilisation of Facebook as a key news source is undisputed. Zuckerburg has obviously realised that. Recently, in a move to give news publishers a brand recognition on its platform, Facebook released new tools that let news outlets display their logos alongside headlines. This has somewhat pacified publishers who had been lamenting about losing their brand identity on the social media sphere.
Supporters of Facebook are saying that it’s the users who trend events or occurrences, and Zuckerburg has nothing to do with, say, rampant criticism of an activity, ideology, product or religion. 
Critics say making the assumption that Facebook could not guide or manipulate sentiment or priorities is simply naive. They also point out that while the mainstream media have their glaring flaws, at least it’s many people trying to chart the way, not just one man.
Facebook has been there for many years now, but it is still evolving. Zuckerberg has wanted his innovation to globalise and unify people, and, to a certain degree, his creation has delivered. But Facebook has also hastened ideological divides, promoted activism and helped organise activities that are anything but reconciliatory or perfect for global harmony. 
He must have realised this, but may not have really known which way to go from here. Users need to help him, especially through responsibility and awareness that while democracy cherishes opinions of the masses, “minority” things are of extreme importance, too.