5 ms·
I'm mostly confused as to what sorts of free speech is being violated by not using ads? Parties can post on their facebook pages and comment the same way users
by SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I'm mostly confused as to what sorts of free speech is being violated by not using ads? Parties can post on their facebook pages and comment the same way users can. Isn't that equal speech? What's the dimension I'm missing?
- SiempreViernes 7y agoFree speech is the tech industry's default excuse for not enforcing something, and for about two decades it worked fine. Please have to have some forbearance while they get over their addiction to that particular excuse.
- orky56 7y agoThrough ads, political parties don't necessarily have to use true statements. In addition, they can target specific groups of users based on demographics and other attributes Facebook provides. The issue is that regular users who post have a higher burden of truth than someone who pays to play as a political figure.
- mattnewton 7y agoIt’s even worse than non-sponsored content competing with sponsored content IMO. These sponsored posts do not have any controls I am aware of to prevent them from running afoul of the FEC’s rules on attribution. Meaning, I can set up a new account and start paying for political ads against my opponent that are not traceable back to the candidate I work for. And worse, because of targeting controls and the ephemeral nature of the Facebook feed, it is possible to completely fly under the radar of people who would notice the violation and report it to regulators, like supporters of the attacked candidate. I think the main reason they want sponsored content is, well, it pays their salaries and fuels the stock’s valuation.