There are hopeful signs that Facebook is starting to understand its power

Editorial: Unfashionable as it may be to point out, trying to restrain anyone’s postings on social media, let alone Donald Trump’s, is a near-impossible task

Mark Zuckerberg’s company says it is trying to combat political disinformation (AFP/Getty)

It’s a start. Sir Nick Clegg’s admission, on behalf of his current employers, Facebook, that it failed to prevent Russian interference in western elections, is a significant one. Even more welcome is the pledge from this giant among tech giants that it will try to block such state-sponsored foreign propaganda in future. The platform will also attempt to moderate the material generated by Donald Trump’s election campaign (and others), though not, seemingly, that which emanates from the president himself, who just happens to be a candidate.

Sir Nick regards the Trumpian messages about looting and shooting or setting vicious dogs on demonstrators as “abhorrent”, but defends the president’s right to say such things because they represent government policy, which is stretching a point. It is not an entirely satisfactory, nor consistent stance. It seems an untidy compromise – but Sir Nick is well used to those.

Unfashionable as it may be to point out, trying to restrain anyone’s postings on social media, let alone Mr Trump’s, is a near-impossible task. Despite all manner of filtering and reporting mechanisms, and the “pile-on” style of self-regulation by users, the sheer volume of material on social media, some produced by armies of bots, is impossible to police. Hence Facebook’s move to allow users to block political advertising, tricky though that may prove in practice.

Even if it were possible to act, as established conventional media publishers do, the aggressive users and controversy-hunters will merely switch channels as soon as they are banned or censored on any given platform. As with running water, they will always seek the route of least resistance.

As Sir Nick knows full well, because he must have seen the traffic numbers, Mr Trump moved some of his small-hours rantings from Twitter to Facebook as soon as Twitter started to moderate a couple of his more outrageous interventions. If Facebook was to tighten up its permissive attitude, Mr Trump would shift to another platform. Rather like global tax evasion, as long as there is some jurisdiction on Earth willing to offer the lightest of light-touch regulation, and a company amoral enough to host a service, social media will continue to be used and abused. It is foolish to imagine otherwise.

It is not quite a counsel of despair, however. Just as the likes of Facebook allow people to publicise fake news or bogus arguments – perhaps less often and less blatantly than before – so too can people (users) also refute and ridicule such activity. The arguments are unrestrained and unforgiving, though all too often some anti-vax conspiracy or crazed rumour about a celebrity can gain currency far too quickly and easily.

Even in the established western democracies there never was a golden age of Socratic discourse between universally polite players. The electors have always had to sift what they are told by the politicians, reporters and commentators in the pages of often extremely partisan newspapers.

Facebook, Google and the other giants could certainly do more than they are doing now, even though they are threatened by Mr Trump with losing their legal immunity to libel actions (and thus their existence as viable enterprises). Where appropriate, they could and should treat the gatherers and generators of news and commentary (including The Independent) more fairly. There are hopeful signs that as they mature, these organisations and leaders such as Mark Zuckerberg are evolving policies and their understanding of their power and wider obligations.