They can’t. But they could ban political ads; it’d be the easiest thing in the world to spin it as the right move, because it is.
18 Likes
…“Psychopathy”? Yeah, no. Thanks for the heads-up, though; it’s good to know YOUR issues ahead of time.
@bobtato Boom! Got it in one.
3 Likes
Not a great take.
How is this psychopathic? It is totally self-aware, balanced and thoughtful. It’s not manipulating readers, it’s highlighting how they might be manipulated by others.
How is this fast and loose? She literally lays out the plot in line 3. There’s noting hidden or underhand in it.
9 Likes
(emphasis mine)
I think they’ll find checking to be necessary only when it is likely to cost them money, but my opinion of that paper sinks a bit lower every year:
1 Like
I’d say the Vox article reveals a paradox: to accurrately reflect the conservative movement the NYT op-ed page would need to start publishing more blatant lies.
2 Likes
Agreed. It’s an attention-grabbing intro to highlight a real problem. And she literally says it’s a lie.
Facebook’s response, on the other hand…
If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue…
is evil gaslighting.
More broadly, Democrats have to show a willingness to fight. I’d rather Warren err on the side of “too feisty” than the opposite.
12 Likes
But then we’re trusting Facebook to determine what does and doesn’t qualify as a political ad. Any time we trust Facebook to make a decision on our behalf, they will do so in bad faith. The only winning move is not to give them that power in the first place.
As Cory has written before, there are two paths: Charge Facebook with enforcing the behavioral norms we dictate (effectively empowering them as a surrogate government), or take away their power to enforce behaviors in general (by breaking up or dissolving Facebook) and empower civil society to enforce norms.
6 Likes
And they won’t because they want the money but don’t want to assume any kind of responsibility.
If actions count, then Zuckerberg has endorsed Trump — just like he did in 2016.
You can believe Facebook’s lies or you can accept what their actions say.
1 Like
Oh, I dunno. From a US perspective, where political advertising saturates every medium to a sanity-abrading degree, it might be hard to imagine getting rid of it. But in a lot of places, political ads are heavily restricted – for instance, in the UK, paid political advertising essentially doesn’t exist on TV or in print.
Of course, that is easier with laws to back it up, which is unlikely in the US. But the point is, if you want to ban it, it’s not hard to pin down what you’re banning. You could for example ban ads that aren’t primarily for a commercial product or service, or soliciting funds for charity.
Realistically, Facebook won’t do that on their own, but I think it is realistic (and intensely desirable) that some places, like the UK, may yet require it. Combine that with a few lawsuits and hearings in the US, and I think they could be persuaded that it’s easier and cheaper to get out of this business worldwide.
2 Likes
Worth mentioning that the UK is suffering from some of the same breed of right wing insanity regardless. Not countering your point. I’m all for any campaign reforms that might reduce the disproportionate influence of money in politics.
1 Like
I see your point.
For me the crux of the problem is Facebook’s desire to pivot from being a social connections site into a news collection agency, and a political ad space where their influence WAS profound in 2016, and isn’t likely going to be less so in 2020, especially after saying they won’t be fact checking any political ads.
They want the cake, and they want to eat it.
Fuck them and any quandary this policy puts them in. They could say “we won’t run any political advertising, since we can’t fact check it,” but that a LOT of lost ad revenue. So they won’t. Instead, they’ll be as – if not more – toxic as they were in 2020, as long as they keep getting paid.
I repeat. Fuck Facebook.
I support what she’s doing in this instance.
2 Likes
It’s true, and I considered mentioning that both Brexit, and the unusually racist rhetoric from the last couple of general elections, happened after Facebook introduced broadcast political advertising (and some associated campaign finance violations) to the UK.
I can’t imagine any of the political parties here love the prospect of a US-style horror show where politicians spend their whole lives scrabbling for cash to buy advertising to get more cash (etc.), and if we ever get past talking about Brexit I think there might be a concerted push to nix it before it gets any worse. Facebook rabble-rousing has helped the Tories more than Labour, but I don’t think even the Tories would look at their last 5-10 years and say internet-borne populist chaos has worked out great for them.
1 Like
They don’t fact-check it on their own with content - they use 3rd-party fact checkers like Politifact. All they would have to do is carry over their process from the content side of the site, except it’s easier because there’s less volume.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
