The whole issue seems to be based around making judgements about the truth to me. The initial problem is that political ads are high risk for distribution of fa

The whole issue seems to be based around making judgements about the truth to me. The initial problem is that political ads are high risk for distribution of false or deceptive information. Fact checking them is too fraught with issues, so you just decide to ban them all instead. Now you’ve just kicked the can down the road a bit and narrowed your search of truth to “is this political or non-political”. > It's really about whether Facebook should be used to amplify political speech Which I would assert that any attempt to control would require FB to make value judgements about said speech, naturally resulting in FB enforcing some particular set of values. I would say that FB and other big tech firms have been following a trend that’s been seen in government a lot in recent times. Identify some threat to public wellbeing (in terms of government the canonical example would be terrorism), and leverage it to gain more power and influence. It’s no secret that society generally walks away from a terrorist attack with less freedom than it had before. For the big tech firms the threat has been “fake news” or “misinformation”, and they’ve been pretty consistent with the response of “we need to exert more control over the flow of information and public discourse to combat this”. Putting aside any debate about whether they should be allowed to do this, I think it’s overall a harmful outcome for society, and I’m surprised that FB hasn’t taken the same approach in this case.