In response to withering criticism for its role in perpetuating fake news, Facebook has recently signaled to users, regulators, and politicians that it is finally getting its house in order. Over the last few weeks, Facebook has announced changes to its News Feed that would prioritize content from friends and family; introduced features that will allow users to “rank” news outlets based on trustworthiness; and acknowledged mistakes in its handling of fake news and general abuse of the site’s platform.

Appearing in Munich on Monday, Facebook’s Vice President Elliot Schrage admitted that the company needs to improve. But he also set clear limits on how far the company would go in remedying its predicament. According to Axios, Schrage insisted that users should be responsible for determining Facebook’s content, not experts: “Schrage said that Facebook itself shouldn’t be the one to decide which news to promote and said that, in a polarized world, turning things over to any third party simply ‘invites criticism [of] who that body of experts is.’”



However, in setting these hard limits, Schrage is inadvertently getting at two larger problems the social network is facing. The first is that the changes Facebook has made so far are largely cosmetic, which suggests it is principally concerned about keeping regulators at bay, rather than ensuring that its billion users aren’t hosed with lies and misinformation. The second is that Facebook’s problems—its singular ability to sow discord between people and spread fake news—are baked into its DNA.



When times are good, Facebook has positioned itself as a gift to humanity, such as during the Arab Spring, when protesters used the social network to organize. But for the most part it sells itself as a neutral conduit for interactions between people and brands. Given its global ambitions, it had no other choice. Facebook was for everyone, everywhere: for liberals and conservatives, but also for people living in democratic and authoritarian countries. This neutrality was given a noble sheen—the social network as a kind of digital Switzerland.



But this ideology of neutrality is also a very useful public relations exercise, one that gave the company’s ferocious expansion a virtuous cover. This tension was brought to the forefront when Facebook’s partnership with Filipino strongman Rodrigo Duterte, whose regime has killed thousands, was made public in December, two months after CEO Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed that he didn’t “want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy.” Facebook, clearly, is a tool for despots and the opposition.