I'd be OK with Zuck's approach, IFF it were implemented with full transparency. I define full transparency as providing a full, near-real-time, public record o

I'd be OK with Zuck's approach, IFF it were implemented with full transparency. I define full transparency as providing a full, near-real-time, public record of EVERY advert run, including (but not limited to): who paid for it & in what currency, all targeting parameters, and count of views. This would allow any person, public interest group, competitor, or other interested party to be informed and respond as they saw appropriate. This would also make FB adverts more like major media adverts, where anyone can (with a little bit of work) see exactly who is running what for & against their position. As FB is currently opaque, it is a magnet for manipulators seeking the holy grail of adverts, micro-targeted at the exact people who will respond, highly effective at changing behavior, and completely unnoticed by the opposition. FB may see this as attracting revenue, but the transparent option described above will likely generate more with the likely cycles of responses to adverts, counter-responses, etc. False claims, wholly misleading edits? Fine, just as long as everyone can see who's spreading that crap, and to whom, and can respond.