4 ms·

Buying political ad is kind of like buying a new car, or a firearm. If you leave the dealership with your new vehicle, and decide to go run over 10 people, the

Buying political ad is kind of like buying a new car, or a firearm. If you leave the dealership with your new vehicle, and decide to go run over 10 people, the dealer is not on the hook for your actions. Same with gun stores not being held liable for gun owners. There may be background checks in place to ensure they aren't selling a car to someone that can't drive (Driver's license) or to make sure someone can own a gun (Background check), but once you pass the initial screening you are on your own for liability. Political ads should be the same, basic KYC to verify the person buying the ad is who they say they are or allowed to represent an entity, but beyond that anything they want say let them say it, let the public scrutinize it, and let their ideas be debated. I could see a world of hurt if this was completely unregulated, as in anyone could pretend to be anyone and buy an ad any which way without verification. This would lead to an insane amount of slander/mudslinging. Just my 2 cents, probably not worth a penny.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwaway_law 7y ago
>If you leave the dealership with your new vehicle, and decide to go run over 10 people, the dealer is not on the hook for your actions. Same with gun stores not being held liable for gun owners. That is not true of the law. If a gun store sells someone a gun, and the store owners knew or should have known you intend to kill someone with it...they gun store is most certainly liable. Even when the gun store wasn't aware the buyer intends to shoot someone, the gun store can be liable if it was negligent in the sale, like this case where KMart sold a gun to a drunk person who shot a woman, KMart was found negligent and liable for $12M
- aphextim 7y ago
  >That is not true of the law. If a gun store sells someone a gun, and the store owners knew or should have known you intend to kill someone with it...they gun store is most certainly liable. This is why literally the next line I say after the KYC/background check. Obviously if a guy sells a gun to someone without doing the proper checks they will be liable. Same if a dealer sells a car to someone without a license. >Same with gun stores not being held liable for gun owners. There may be background checks in place to ensure they aren't selling a car to someone that can't drive (Driver's license) or to make sure someone can own a gun (Background check), but once you pass the initial screening you are on your own for liability. >Political ads should be the same, basic KYC to verify the person buying the ad is who they say they are or allowed to represent an entity, but beyond that anything they want say let them say it, let the public scrutinize it, and let their ideas be debated.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >Obviously if a guy sells a gun to someone without doing the proper checks they will be liable. It has nothing to do with "proper checks", the background checks were all completed properly and the buyer passed them, but there was additional facts having nothing to do with background checks that created liability.
YellowBelly 7y ago
Its more like having someone buy a firearm that has a bumpstock and then also giving them a free stay at a hotel that looks out on a popular concert. We're in the information age where information is starting to be used as a weapon and we need to have ways in which we are protecting individual people's right to not get undue influence by corporations or people in power. The parties that are in control of the media need to take responsibility to protect the public's rights and if they wont, the government should regulate them.
- geggam 7y ago
  >The parties that are in control of the media need to take responsibility to protect the public's rights and if they wont, the government should regulate them. Disagree. It is your responsibility to be informed and call bullshit on things that are lies. IF you think the same politicians who get elected by lies are going to force the corporations that line their pockets to tell the truth I have a bridge I will sell you. Nice one right there in San Francisco.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  There has always been asymmetry and weaponization of information though and it probably used to be worse. At least now there are options to verify and correct for those who care to do so.
bzbz 7y ago
When you buy a car, you buy it once. The dealer does not continuously give you the ability to run people over. When you post political ads, facebook runs them until your ad spend is done. When you run someone over, there's no question about whether you did something wrong. But when you run a fake news political campaign, people may land on both sides of the fence. When you drive a car, nobody but you can turn the steering wheel. When you buy a political ad, Facebook is the one that deploys it. These are very different subjects. These are in fact, so different, that you can look at the valuation differences between a SaaS company, and a traditional manufacturing company. And if the actual products are different, the delivery method is different, the ROI is different.... Let's not make this comparison again. No fault to you, of course. And back to your point: a background check makes sense if the deliverable is done once, like a car. A content filter/fact check/etc that happens before each post makes more sense in the context of a continuously-delivered model, such as paying for multiple ads.
friendlybus 7y ago
Hosting political ads is a political act, no matter the perspective. You want in the political game, take responsibility. You want out then don't host political content.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwaway_law 7y ago

>If you leave the dealership with your new vehicle, and decide to go run over 10 people, the dealer is not on the hook for your actions. Same with gun stores not being held liable for gun owners. That is not true of the law. If a gun store sells someone a gun, and the store owners knew or should have known you intend to kill someone with it...they gun store is most certainly liable. Even when the gun store wasn't aware the buyer intends to shoot someone, the gun store can be liable if it was negligent in the sale, like this case where KMart sold a gun to a drunk person who shot a woman, KMart was found negligent and liable for $12M

aphextim 7y ago
>That is not true of the law. If a gun store sells someone a gun, and the store owners knew or should have known you intend to kill someone with it...they gun store is most certainly liable. This is why literally the next line I say after the KYC/background check. Obviously if a guy sells a gun to someone without doing the proper checks they will be liable. Same if a dealer sells a car to someone without a license. >Same with gun stores not being held liable for gun owners. There may be background checks in place to ensure they aren't selling a car to someone that can't drive (Driver's license) or to make sure someone can own a gun (Background check), but once you pass the initial screening you are on your own for liability. >Political ads should be the same, basic KYC to verify the person buying the ad is who they say they are or allowed to represent an entity, but beyond that anything they want say let them say it, let the public scrutinize it, and let their ideas be debated.
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >Obviously if a guy sells a gun to someone without doing the proper checks they will be liable. It has nothing to do with "proper checks", the background checks were all completed properly and the buyer passed them, but there was additional facts having nothing to do with background checks that created liability.

YellowBelly 7y ago

Its more like having someone buy a firearm that has a bumpstock and then also giving them a free stay at a hotel that looks out on a popular concert. We're in the information age where information is starting to be used as a weapon and we need to have ways in which we are protecting individual people's right to not get undue influence by corporations or people in power. The parties that are in control of the media need to take responsibility to protect the public's rights and if they wont, the government should regulate them.

geggam 7y ago
>The parties that are in control of the media need to take responsibility to protect the public's rights and if they wont, the government should regulate them. Disagree. It is your responsibility to be informed and call bullshit on things that are lies. IF you think the same politicians who get elected by lies are going to force the corporations that line their pockets to tell the truth I have a bridge I will sell you. Nice one right there in San Francisco.
mythrwy 7y ago
There has always been asymmetry and weaponization of information though and it probably used to be worse. At least now there are options to verify and correct for those who care to do so.

bzbz 7y ago

When you buy a car, you buy it once. The dealer does not continuously give you the ability to run people over. When you post political ads, facebook runs them until your ad spend is done. When you run someone over, there's no question about whether you did something wrong. But when you run a fake news political campaign, people may land on both sides of the fence. When you drive a car, nobody but you can turn the steering wheel. When you buy a political ad, Facebook is the one that deploys it. These are very different subjects. These are in fact, so different, that you can look at the valuation differences between a SaaS company, and a traditional manufacturing company. And if the actual products are different, the delivery method is different, the ROI is different.... Let's not make this comparison again. No fault to you, of course. And back to your point: a background check makes sense if the deliverable is done once, like a car. A content filter/fact check/etc that happens before each post makes more sense in the context of a continuously-delivered model, such as paying for multiple ads.

friendlybus 7y ago

Hosting political ads is a political act, no matter the perspective. You want in the political game, take responsibility. You want out then don't host political content.