3 ms·

I don't really understand the problem, Facebook is no arbiter of truth and also not the Police. If we as a society need FB to deal with lying politicians we hav

I don't really understand the problem, Facebook is no arbiter of truth and also not the Police. If we as a society need FB to deal with lying politicians we have bigger problems. In any case fact checking in Politics seems like a dirty game to me. I mean where are the facts in believing a certain policy will change things for the better? If only it were that simple we could just leave ruling our countries to fact checkers and a random potential-fact generating machine.

jdashg 7y ago
We have the bigger problems you mention. Also, while companies are not required to attempt to do good and improve the SNR of (whether you like it or not) wide-reaching debates on their platforms, we should be disappointed when they decline to even attempt to handle the externalities of optimized engagement at scale.
- teekert 7y ago
  Well, lets take climate change. Many people are 100% convinced of human induced climate changes affecting current day weather patterns. Although science may put it at about 99% (depending on the source!). Now what is a fact? What will happen with Trump denying human induced climate change on FB? It's going to be a mess.
  - mantap 7y ago
    Ads denying climate change should not be accepted by Facebook. That's a perfect example of untruthful advertising.
cryptica 7y ago
Agreed. I was reading about the Joe Biden story and according to multiple sources, it seems that he did ask the president of Ukraine for that prosecutor to be fired or else they would not receive $1 billion of loans. Also, it appears to be true that Joe Biden's son was working for one of companies being investigated by the prosecutor. Maybe it's not a proven fact but it does look suspicious and it's OK for an advertisement to point out this anomaly even if there is uncertainty.
- tempestn 7y ago
  Except that the reason the US government wanted Shokin fired was because he was not investigating corruption and companies like Burisma aggressively enough. And it's not like Biden was even the one who came up with the messaging; he was just the one to deliver it. So advertisements stating or implying that the action might have been done to quash an investigation into Burisma (or more egregiously, into Hunter Biden specifically) are not exploring uncertainty in good faith, but are rather intentionally misleading. Edit: Which isn't to say I think Facebook should be responsible for making these calls.
bitxbit 7y ago
This is such a lazy and illogical argument. It is Facebook’s problem when they continue to ignore user privacy concerns and requests. Moreover, Facebook also provides data for targeted ads. They’re providing the very tools needed to run effective political ads that are based on conspiracy theories and lies. Facebook literally helped invent this brand of political campaign.

jdashg 7y ago

We have the bigger problems you mention. Also, while companies are not required to attempt to do good and improve the SNR of (whether you like it or not) wide-reaching debates on their platforms, we should be disappointed when they decline to even attempt to handle the externalities of optimized engagement at scale.

teekert 7y ago
Well, lets take climate change. Many people are 100% convinced of human induced climate changes affecting current day weather patterns. Although science may put it at about 99% (depending on the source!). Now what is a fact? What will happen with Trump denying human induced climate change on FB? It's going to be a mess.
- mantap 7y ago
  Ads denying climate change should not be accepted by Facebook. That's a perfect example of untruthful advertising.

cryptica 7y ago

Agreed. I was reading about the Joe Biden story and according to multiple sources, it seems that he did ask the president of Ukraine for that prosecutor to be fired or else they would not receive $1 billion of loans. Also, it appears to be true that Joe Biden's son was working for one of companies being investigated by the prosecutor. Maybe it's not a proven fact but it does look suspicious and it's OK for an advertisement to point out this anomaly even if there is uncertainty.

tempestn 7y ago
Except that the reason the US government wanted Shokin fired was because he was not investigating corruption and companies like Burisma aggressively enough. And it's not like Biden was even the one who came up with the messaging; he was just the one to deliver it. So advertisements stating or implying that the action might have been done to quash an investigation into Burisma (or more egregiously, into Hunter Biden specifically) are not exploring uncertainty in good faith, but are rather intentionally misleading. Edit: Which isn't to say I think Facebook should be responsible for making these calls.

bitxbit 7y ago

This is such a lazy and illogical argument. It is Facebook’s problem when they continue to ignore user privacy concerns and requests. Moreover, Facebook also provides data for targeted ads. They’re providing the very tools needed to run effective political ads that are based on conspiracy theories and lies. Facebook literally helped invent this brand of political campaign.