Aza Raskin

They can get 25% of people to stop believing in conspiracy theory, but that shouldn't be an, oh, yay.

That's an, oh, no.

That's how powerful these things are as persuasion engines.

And so if you're designing not for human thriving, you're just designing to do the very best match from what the user's stated intent is to whatever product.

Or you're trying to steer them in some specific direction that an advertiser paid for.

What would be designing for thriving is leading the user almost to a Socratic method to try to clarify what their intent really is.

Do you really want to go like eat at fast food or is what you're trying to do is kind of a fulfilling meal with friends?

That clarification is really important.

That's what designing for thriving really means and there's an opportunity to do that.

Now on to principle number four.

But I'm actually not going to tell you what it is immediately.

We're going to play you a clip.

And I want you to ask yourself, what's wrong with this?

I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.

I think in general, private companies probably shouldn't be, or especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that.

That was Mark Zuckerberg on Fox News.

So what's wrong with what he said?

Well, it sounds reasonable, right?

We, of course, don't want a single private company deciding what's true and being the arbiter of truth.

But note that Facebook already is being the arbiter of truth.