3 ms·

It's not clear to me that one could always decide what constitutes a political ad in the first place. Sure, there is the obvious, vote for candidate X. But wha

by eej71 7y ago

It's not clear to me that one could always decide what constitutes a political ad in the first place. Sure, there is the obvious, vote for candidate X. But what about issue advocacy ads? Are ads from an industry advocate group political? Say it was funded by the Koch brothers defending fossil fuels? Or what about an ad from the Southern Poverty Law Center to fight for disenfranchised voters? Or what about an anti-vax group looking to mobilize their base? I don't see how its that clear cut.

otterley 7y ago
Why does it have to be clear cut? Why not bias on the side of denial? Facebook doesn’t have to be a platform for paid political speech.
- eej71 7y ago
  So if planned parenthood runs an ad inviting people to join their network of supporters to protest in support of a right to abortion - would that be paid political speech in your eyes? How about if the Catholic Church runs an ad for a pro-life YouTube channel? It's easy to say things like "not be a platform for paid political speech". I'm sure you have a clear cut line in your head and it makes sense to you. But to expect a large corporation - or some thoughtful government committee - to draw that line with any consistency or articulable principle seems incredibly naive.
  - otterley 7y ago
    (Yes to both examples.) As I've said elsewhere, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The decision matrix doesn't need to be perfectly consistent or articulable. (As Justice Stewart once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it.") Biasing towards denial will help make Facebook a much more peaceful place. Besides, as I've said elsewhere, this is about paid distribution, not banning from Facebook. People and organizations should remain free to do and say whatever they like in their own groups and pages, and members or individuals should remain free to share these messages if they like. But that's a different thing from forcing a message into someone's feed.

by eej71 7y ago

otterley 7y ago

Why does it have to be clear cut? Why not bias on the side of denial? Facebook doesn’t have to be a platform for paid political speech.

eej71 7y ago
So if planned parenthood runs an ad inviting people to join their network of supporters to protest in support of a right to abortion - would that be paid political speech in your eyes? How about if the Catholic Church runs an ad for a pro-life YouTube channel? It's easy to say things like "not be a platform for paid political speech". I'm sure you have a clear cut line in your head and it makes sense to you. But to expect a large corporation - or some thoughtful government committee - to draw that line with any consistency or articulable principle seems incredibly naive.
- otterley 7y ago
  (Yes to both examples.) As I've said elsewhere, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The decision matrix doesn't need to be perfectly consistent or articulable. (As Justice Stewart once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it.") Biasing towards denial will help make Facebook a much more peaceful place. Besides, as I've said elsewhere, this is about paid distribution, not banning from Facebook. People and organizations should remain free to do and say whatever they like in their own groups and pages, and members or individuals should remain free to share these messages if they like. But that's a different thing from forcing a message into someone's feed.