Recently, I have spent time in Facebook discussion groups debating issues of interest to me. We usually confronted our ideas constructively, which helped us better understand each other’s views and form objective conclusions.
Some people acted in an offensive and tasteless manner, which ruined the conversations. Facebook gives people the right to vote about other people's presentations in groups with various values, from likes to dislikes. These votes are judgments of the people made by the people. They are designed to benefit people.
Positive evaluations encourage Facebook participants to continue as they do, and negative assessments should urge them to reconsider their actions. However, negative evaluations rarely improve the performance of confronted debaters because they rarely consider the opposing views objectively. Additionally, these evaluations are deleted along with posts, leaving no lasting impact on the evaluated person, so the opinions and behaviour of participants in discussions rarely change.
If these evaluations were taken seriously, then it would improve the Facebook community. I am not claiming that Facebook discussion forums are inherently bad, but they could be improved. The Facebook community could improve by collecting the feedback it receives. Facebook can accumulate these evaluations permanently in the account of each evaluated member.
I propose that Facebook serve as a force for people's power in society and create significant social improvement. It has emerged from my philosophy, which is based on equal human rights. By accepting my proposal, Facebook will introduce a new democracy, which I call democratic anarchy. It can make this world a wonderful place to live.
Let Facebook adopt a democratic approach and give each account user the right to evaluate three to five other users positively or negatively on a monthly basis. Then, Facebook should show the sum of the received evaluations on the member's account profiles. Facebook members would obviously prefer to receive positive assessments rather than negative ones. They will achieve this by responsibly using their freedom of expression in interactions with others. Moreover, it will address the issue of free speech on Facebook, eliminating the need for arbitration, as negative evaluations will deter haters from harming others. This way, democratic anarchy will improve Facebook's community and the world.
Facebook members should accept the system of democratic anarchy by signing the consent to the evaluation terms. It will give Facebook members the equal right to evaluate others and be simultaneously evaluated by others in return. Of course, everyone would gladly join Facebook to judge others, but they will hesitate to be judged by others due to the risk of being negatively assessed. However, productive and brave people will accept the Facebook evaluation terms without hesitation. The risk of receiving negative judgment would bring them respect, giving them chances to be influential members of society.
On the other hand, avoiding Facebook's evaluation terms might be characterized as a lack of courage and dignity. With time, everyone would be encouraged to join Facebook's evaluation terms. Then, everyone will consider what effect their words and deeds might have on others. To receive good evaluations and avoid bad ones, they will enhance the lives of others and refrain from harming them. It will create a productive environment on Facebook. People will learn that equal human rights make a prosperous society.
If Facebook members receive more positive evaluations than negative ones, the result may be visible only to the people being assessed; however, they may choose to share their evaluations with the public if they wish. The evaluation system would primarily present people with how appreciated they are in society, indicating whether others generally like or dislike them. Everyone would be interested in knowing more about what others think of them. If people receive more favourable evaluations than they send, and if the number grows every month, that will tell them they are on the right track, making them feel good. They would further improve their contribution to the Facebook community to receive more positive evaluations.
If Facebook members receive more negative evaluations than positive ones, the result will be presented to the public. People with more negative evaluations will have the difference between positive and negative assessments presented in red on their pictures. Most people who receive numerous negative evaluations would not like it and try to avoid it. It would be possible to achieve this only by improving their opinion and behaviour on Facebook. The evaluations will teach people to respect each other and solve problems constructively. The system of assessment would improve the Facebook community.
People must have an equal right to evaluation, which means nobody shall have more voting power than anyone else. In my opinion, the equal rights of people are the only condition necessary for creating a good society. It will give direct power to the people for the first time, which will make a good society. A click has become a potent tool in business, bringing money to more visited websites. Voting among the people will become an even more powerful tool for significantly improving society.
I propose that these evaluations be anonymous to avoid relationship problems among individuals, especially when they know each other. People will receive evaluations, but will never know who gave them. Then every person would try to improve their behaviour towards everyone, and everyone would be very interested in exercising their voting power. When everyone has the right to vote, the total result of voting would be more objective than when privileged individuals do it, resulting in a better outcome.
Facebook may also include a waiver for, say, a year, during which inadequate evaluations would not be publicly presented. The assessments would still be visible to the people who receive them, giving them time to adapt. I am convinced that even a waived evaluation, which carries no consequences, would improve society. All people may also receive equal credit for good evaluations, preventing them from falling into the red zone too fast.
Of course, some people would not care about being in the red zone, especially those with fake accounts. Still, they would bear the burden of negative evaluations wherever they appeared on Facebook, warning people that they had misbehaved. By that time, they would have to improve. Otherwise, people would ignore them.
I wouldn't mind receiving inadequate evaluations, either. There is one thing worse than a bad assessment: knowing how to improve society, yet having no one believe it will make a significant difference. Inadequate evaluations would bring attention to me and my idea: “Equal rights of people will solve all social problems,” and people would start considering it.
Changes would not only affect the cyber world. Members of Facebook have a real life, and they would have to act appropriately in the real world as well. Otherwise, their friends, neighbours, and colleagues may evaluate them negatively. The system of evaluation would also improve the real world.
Most presidents of countries have a Facebook account. They use them to announce their policies and to garner support from the people. However, there is no way for people to change an unacceptable policy that the president provides. If Facebook accepts my proposal, it will give people the power to change the president's bad policy. Namely, bad presidents will get many inadequate evaluations from people, resulting in a significantly low evaluation score. They would not like it. These evaluations would present alarming presidential rates and little chance of staying in power. Facebook may be able to pressure the presidents of countries to better serve the needs of their people. Yes, countries' presidents may easily escape such evaluations by closing their Facebook accounts. However, running away from the “battlefield” would surely negatively impact their political ratings.
The new Facebook evaluation would give direct power to people, and they would like to possess it very much. Ordinary people would seldom receive bad assessments. They would witness that the assessment system significantly improves social life. Then they would pressure their governments to establish such a system officially as part of the state democracy. States may give people much more power than Facebook can. People may and should have the most significant impact on society directly.
Equal power in the hands of the people will solve every social problem. The equal right to evaluation will make people become better human beings. It will bring a bright future to humankind. It is a clear win-win situation for people. I wrote more about it in the article, "The Future of Democracy."
***
The idea is so simple that I could implement it for the whole world through the internet alone if privacy laws did not prevent the collection of information about citizens without their consent. In essence, individuals can behave unacceptably, and privacy laws prevent the spreading of information about it. This is an obstacle that I am unable to overcome. Facebook could implement equal human rights quickly because users let it collect their information. Facebook did not accept my idea because it was in the best interest of people, but not in the best interest of the corporate world.