500 major companies pull their ads from Facebook. 

Why did they do that? In fact they are even demanded a refund for ads that appeared on hate speech pages. 

So that's the reason. They expect Facebook to do what Twitter has done in censuring hate speech and untruths. 

It may mark the beginning of a new era in social media, one in which messages are fact-checked and pulled or marked up if fake. 

I am not surprised. The level of fake news washing around social networks has turned such spaces into septic drains. 

It allows any old view to be concocted and distributed as fact, not just by the naive but by people who should know better. 

Yesterday I saw a banner, "UN donates millions to sexually indoctrinate South African children". 

Now, doesn't that, to the reasonable man, sound worthy of at least a little bit of fact checking. But no, its assumed to be right. 

The reality of the situation is that the state is deeply concerned that children are not aware of the dangers stalking them. But I digress. 

There is no doubt that proliferation of fake news has always been the first step towards corruption. 

Adam and Eve fell for the first dose. Ahab later rejected a truth telling prophet for those who flattered and gave false comfort. 

I could cite so many cases where misinformation was used as a tactic to disarm or breakdown a gullible society. 

The Salem witch-trials were entirely based on conspiracies, superstitions and manipulation. 

But Goebbels turned fake news into a ministry of propaganda, through which he duped his people and misled the world. 

Okay, so what is the alternative? 

I always felt that an Internet that is free enough to allow porn is also free enough to honor noble messages or the gospel. 

The bible obliquely agrees with, "where sin abounds, grace abounds much more" and "light shines in darkness". 

But, the world we are entering is increasingly likely to censor social media, increasingly subjectively. 

That will see legitimate truth being sanitized by those who think such ideas offend genders or races or whatever. 

Where will the line be drawn? I don't know, but I see a real risk in authorities deciding what you may or may not say or hear. 

It already happens in oppressive regimes. Yet, media freedom is a release valve that allows feelings out, while suppression of free speech leads to a build-up of tensions and social problems. 

My family has debated ways of rating news stories like IMDB, setting editorial standards or limiting access. None would work. 

So I am left with a quandary. Letting big business drive what can or can't be said in the name of profits, is understandable but risky.

I foresee information becoming increasingly controlled by authorities and that will not be healthy at all. 

So perhaps the only option is a voluntary code of conduct that we embrace together by choosing not to circulate fake news and to fact check what we distribute. That is the only viable option. 

(c) Peter Missing @ me2u2all.blogspot.com