Should a driver's license be required on Facebook and Youtube?

It is annoying to start by saying that I do not need to say that we generally fail in the classroom regardless of the classic and next-generation definitions of literacy. Ignorance knows no boundaries, but we pretend to be experts in almost every subject. I will not go into the plagiarized histories of those with great titles and responsibilities. We're okay on paper. The new generation literacy ranges from information literacy to media literacy, from financial literacy to life literacy, whatever you may say. Knowledge-based awareness and the ability to distinguish between the curve and the line.
The subject of this note is a question over the concept of narrowed literacy: Do Facebook and Youtube users need a minimum of media literacy? If we expand it a little bit, we can call it social media.

Mark Sullivan penned this opinion, which drew my attention at Fast Company, and the short answer is "yes there is." The justification is extremely practical, if I have to quote purely; He says, "Just as you get a license with the thought that you can harm the society in order to drive in traffic, those who enter these channels must be licensed for the social media you leave in blood," he says. It is a very legitimate argument, it is beneficial for everyone - all of us to go through communication education in some way. Every tweet we post, almost every post we share, and the personal and individual social media violence we are exposed to hurts. Is there a need to be so upset and sad. Although I think most of them are made with unconscious, ignorant courage, a large group that cannot be underestimated is making great efforts to really hurt. By the way, staff members hired professionally are not the subject of this article.
I do not think that Facebook, Youtube, or other similar channels would be happy with this idea, if they had taken a responsibility in this sense, their entrances and exits and actions would not be under the name of "limiting communication", but they would be subject to some kind of license. We all know it's costly, and we see why they haven't gotten their hands on the stone.
Social media ignorance knows no bounds. The situation is similar in countries that state that they are examples of advanced democracy and those that fall below the most basic criteria. Unfortunately, the world cannot pass the civilization test according to the economic size of the countries, and communities pass through these tests.
There have been so many articles published in this direction in the USA that Sullivan's article is one of them… I shout "Goodddmorningggg America". The rebels who raided Washington were honed for months due to the negative and provocative content in the aforementioned media. Well, what should other peoples, who have been known every second for years and every day, do? ... Now those who strive for the sunrise in America in this sense, weren't they content with just watching and lecturing while these works were happening in other geographies?

Although it is appetizing and more interesting to discuss this issue with its political and social dimensions, let's focus on the practical solution. Of course, the first address is schools. I will not say that communication-media literacy should be included in the curriculum, I will say it has to. I hear you snickering, aside from 4 processes, how the generations, who have been shown to be unable to understand what they read, will approach communication literacy is another matter of curiosity! It is imperative to start somewhere, the fact that we have sacrificed several generations in the last 20 years hurts us, but at least let's catch those who are just starting life ... Let's start from somewhere ...
While discussing the issue of false, biased and false news appearing on social media and then correcting it one way or another, let's not forget that social media is the biggest garbage in the world. Written, insults, false news, deliberate montage photos remain like plastic in the seas, leaving a mark.
In fact, an issue that has been puzzling me for a long time is why decarbonisation is so popular, why social media garbage is not getting its share…. He's really a carbon monster and really mind-blowing.
Let me bring another issue to your agenda with its different dimensions; What happens when a particularly important group is threatened in these channels; total ban! All or nothing… We cannot say that no government has passed the class on this issue.
The staff employed by Facebook to monitor 2.7 billion users using police methods consisted of 15 thousand people. If you consider the specially developed tracking-listening algorithm, it is never possible to pass some filters. But I do not know how to explain the easily collapsed walls.
At this stage, although some of the discussions on the subject focus on the international control mechanism, I think the most difficult and innovative social media channels focus on literacy education on their platforms. The voice of those who say that every channel should bear this responsibility is increasing. On the other hand, although not exactly social media, some think tanks and institutions with a high number of users have started to provide media literacy training. The first feedback received points to positive results. So it can be done. A platform like Facebook, which matches the word dangerous in our perception, started with a donation of $ 1 billion. They especially plan to start with groups that are most susceptible to deceit, including children and the elderly.

You might be saying, "What am I going to get out of here, the bottom line is I'm a stand-alone user". You can start by taking responsibility in your own institution. I think we have wasted an application called KVKK that no one understands, does not understand and cannot tell who is good for it. I wish we could explain the danger and the consciousness that needs to be reached through rational campaigns in this process.
Let me conclude with practical information. I would like to draw your attention to the interesting findings of the Rand Corporation research. The answer to the question of how to refute fake news is the best method we know, whatever you do, immediately lie, give the truth instantly, erase the lie and remove it… the formula does not work. According to this research, the emergence of biased false news is directly more effective and convincing under all circumstances. It was better absorbed by readers to wait for circulation and give it the right one in a week. Otherwise, the lie was crushing the truth. And the last finding; who throws the most bragging and dry shit; Uninformed and unexpected individuals have a high tendency to lie and false news. Those who thought they could escape the consequences and go unnoticed were producing bragging content with greater appetite. Literacy needs everyone.