> The third concern is what has dominated the news cycle as of late: Facebook’s decision to not fact-check any posts or ads from politicians. This is largely be

> The third concern is what has dominated the news cycle as of late: Facebook’s decision to not fact-check any posts or ads from politicians. This is largely being framed as aiding President Trump in particular, which is probably both true and also an unsurprising complaint from the Second Estate used to having monopoly control over fact-checking. > The broader issue is that the third concern and first concern are so clearly in direct opposition to each other. If Facebook has the potential for immense influence on politics, why on earth would anyone want the company policing political speech? Maybe because they're fact-checking lots of other things to promote themselves as a platform you can find facts on? I don't know, I'd think if there was any ostensible non-partisan shared value in a democracy, it'd be a desire for factual information. Spun and biased, sure, but fundamentally factual. (In reality, I don't think this is true anymore, at least from the head of the executive branch and his sycophants, but this shared value is not irreparably broken nationwide.) If Facebook isn't going to fact-check anything, then that's one thing, but if they're going to fact-check some things, it's far from unreasonable for them to fact-check political ads.