After mounting pressure on Facebook Inc. regarding its role in the world, the company today attempted to address the issue of what impact it might have on democracy.

In the latest of its periodic “Hard Questions” series, this one on social media and democracy, Facebook will invite its own staff and guest speakers to tackle the topic of what positive and negative influences such a social media platform – one with 2 billion users, no less – might have on a democratic society.

Samidh Chakrabarti, working at Facebook as a product manager in charge of civic engagement, admitted that he was “not blind to the damage that the internet can do to even a well-functioning democracy.” He went on to say that Facebook didn’t anticipate what a powerful tool it would become in shaping people’s political beliefs.

The downside, wrote Chakrabarti, is that Facebook has been used as an “information weapon,” relating to Russian propaganda promulgated through the platform. “It’s abhorrent to us that a nation-state used our platform to wage a cyberwar intended to divide society,” he said.

Aside from Russia, he conceded that anyone with unethical intentions could use Facebook to spread misinformation, adding that although this is a problem, Facebook does not want to become the arbiter of truth. Indeed, on Friday, Facebook introduced a controversial move to crowdsource ratings of “trustworthy” news.

Chakrabarti covered “echo chambers” and political bullying on Facebook, both of which have garnered much attention over the last couple of years. Social media “amplifies” intent, for good or for bad, he conceded, adding, “I wish I could guarantee that the positives are destined to outweigh the negatives, but I can’t.”

Cass R. Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School, also joined the debate in one of several guest columns that will run on Facebook this week. He mirrored Chakrabarti, and probably most public sentiment, in writing that having such a powerful tool to spread ideas and information or have a soapbox in which to voice misgivings about society or politics can be “terrific” for democracy, but there’s a negative side, too.

He invoked the American philosophical pragmatist John Dewey: “The United States are not yet made; they are not a finished fact to be categorically assessed.” Social media platforms, he said, can be important in continuing this work in progress.

At the same time, Sunstein mentioned the “phenomenon of group polarization,” which he said is “at best” a problem, adding. “At worst, it’s dangerous.” To combat this, he said, Facebook should not be feeding people news relevant to them. He called this the “Perils of Personalization.”

“Citizens should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance,” he wrote. “Serendipity is a good thing. Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself.”

Sunstein also said people should take it upon themselves to examine the truth, or to be skeptical and curious, but at the same time there should be some process in place “to enable citizens to have access to the truth.”

He concluded, “The good news is that social media platforms are hardly a finished fact to be categorically assessed. They are very much a work in progress.”

Reading Twitter comments, it seems Facebook is being criticized along the lines of offering too little too late, although others applauded the fact Facebook is now taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

Image: Global Panorama via Flickr