3 ms·

Well the first problem is that is a crime to allow a foreign national (which includes companies) to purchase political ads in US campaigns (Federal Election Cam

Well the first problem is that is a crime to allow a foreign national (which includes companies) to purchase political ads in US campaigns (Federal Election Campaign Act). If Russia efforts to buy ads on Facebook were sufficiently masked maybe Facebook wouldn't be responsible, but some indications are that some of these ads were purchased by clearly Russia entities. Second potential problem is that it is alleged that Facebook employees were embedded in the Trump campaign's digital efforts. This would not necessarily be a problem in and off itself, but there is a lot of rumbling about stolen voter data that was used for microtargetting on Facebook. If Facebook had knowledge of data that was illegally obtained by a hostile foreign intelligence service, there could be some additional culpability.

factsaresacred 9y ago
They were not political ads. Does anyone read anymore? They were ads that highlighted social issues. That's it.
- GVIrish 9y ago
  Most of the reporting I've read on that particular point state that most of the ads were aimed at divisive social issues rather than promoting a particular candidate, not that all of them were. Maybe the fact that the majority of the ads were not explicitly promoting or attacking any particular candidate will be enough to absolve Facebook of any blame. But chances are there were far more ads purchased than just that $100k buy so the question will be what did Facebook know, when did they know, and what did they do about it. Same deal with Twitter.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Also, the business was not necessarily conducted in US jurisdiction. Facebook is a network-connected business, and the network doesn't stop at a border, as a broadcast television signal might fall off with increasing distance from the geographically fixed antenna, or as a newspaper or magazine that is delivered to a mailing address might never again migrate further than the distance from the coffee table to the trash can. If a Russian wants to tell someone in Germany that Hillary Clinton is just the worst, I don't think the US has any reason to expect it can stand between them and say they can't do that, just because she happens to be running a political campaign--especially since political campaigns in the US are interminably long and tedious, such that a public figure might be expected to be continuously connected to one political campaign or another for decades. I think probably the best that could happen there is a disclosure rule, such that anyone that transmits such messages to a US recipient has to be able to identify the person or organization that created it, or to warn the recipient that the sender could not be identified.

factsaresacred 9y ago

They were not political ads. Does anyone read anymore? They were ads that highlighted social issues. That's it.

GVIrish 9y ago
Most of the reporting I've read on that particular point state that most of the ads were aimed at divisive social issues rather than promoting a particular candidate, not that all of them were. Maybe the fact that the majority of the ads were not explicitly promoting or attacking any particular candidate will be enough to absolve Facebook of any blame. But chances are there were far more ads purchased than just that $100k buy so the question will be what did Facebook know, when did they know, and what did they do about it. Same deal with Twitter.
logfromblammo 9y ago
Also, the business was not necessarily conducted in US jurisdiction. Facebook is a network-connected business, and the network doesn't stop at a border, as a broadcast television signal might fall off with increasing distance from the geographically fixed antenna, or as a newspaper or magazine that is delivered to a mailing address might never again migrate further than the distance from the coffee table to the trash can. If a Russian wants to tell someone in Germany that Hillary Clinton is just the worst, I don't think the US has any reason to expect it can stand between them and say they can't do that, just because she happens to be running a political campaign--especially since political campaigns in the US are interminably long and tedious, such that a public figure might be expected to be continuously connected to one political campaign or another for decades. I think probably the best that could happen there is a disclosure rule, such that anyone that transmits such messages to a US recipient has to be able to identify the person or organization that created it, or to warn the recipient that the sender could not be identified.