3 ms·
> Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth. Zuck himself,
by CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.
Zuck himself, ironically, has helped create that situation by deliberately reducing organic reach to force people to pay to be heard.
This is a cynical ploy for money on Zuck's/Facebook's part. If they really cared about free speech, they wouldn't hobble the organic reach of political actors.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoIt's possible for both of those things to be true at the same time -- that they should neither deliberately restrict organic reach nor refuse political advertising on the basis of content.
- philipov 7y agoRight, they should refuse all advertising, regardless of content. They have made themselves into the largest public platform and have no business taking bribes. If they want to be a profit-generating business, they should stop being the public forum.