In the U.S., Facebook is allowed to lie, and to propagate lies of others. On what basis is Facebook required to be any different than the National Enquirer? The

In the U.S., Facebook is allowed to lie, and to propagate lies of others. On what basis is Facebook required to be any different than the National Enquirer? The limitation is defamation, but in a political context defamation doesn't apply. Mozilla's letter is to the European Commission, and as such I recognize different laws between the U.S. and E.U. are relevant. However, the most simple test for double standard is to flip the narrative around: imagine a truth that makes many people angry to hear, and imagine that unpopular truth being put into an ad, and imagine the people arguing for ad targeting methods to be revealed are people who want to protect people from truth in order to allow them to keep on believing lies. I appreciate the importance of developing tools to fight disinformation campaigns. But on what basis can any person or company be compelled to reveal their advertising methodology? What is public interest in a political ad campaign context where literally everyone involved is claiming moral high ground? I think regulating speech is a trap, and people need to consider the double standard. What happens when your truth becomes difficult or impossible to disseminate, because it makes most people angry to hear? You really think all angry people need their emotional state coddled? Why protect them from becoming angry? This is why we need to do better in school teaching coping skills, and critical thinking.