5 ms·

> response to Zuckerberg's statements regarding Facebook's political advertising policy? reply Its up to Advertiser to make certain they are Not lying, Not the

> response to Zuckerberg's statements regarding Facebook's political advertising policy? reply Its up to Advertiser to make certain they are Not lying, Not the publication. Is FB now supposed to verify Every Single Ingredient in a Can of Spam before they let them advertise a Spam Taco... imho, it's absurd.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Welcome to the Publisher vs Platform debate. The issue is in some cases “they” (FANNG, Reddit, Twitter, etc) want to be platforms like Facebook saying ads aren’t their responsibility, and in some cases are acting as publishers by censoring otherwise legal content they do not like or agree with. There are memes that will get you instantly suspended from Facebook, while you and Facebook argue no one could possibly monitor content! It shouldn’t be that the giants get to be both. Legally they are provided protections against content on their system - but historically this only applies to platforms where the content is entirely unfiltered. Think if your telco cut the call when you said the words “Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself” as a fictitious example, they shouldn’t get liability protection for things people say if they’re going to curate the content like that.
- computerex 7y ago
  Right, there is definitely a double standard. Facebook wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Look how hard they are trying to get into China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China They don't care about free speech or cooperating with one of the biggest enemy of Free Speech in the world (China) when there is potential revenue to be made.
  - brycesbeard 7y ago
    Wait, what? The link you shared didn’t sound like Facebook is even trying to get into China. And the one reference to them building something with the Chinese govt is a link to a login paywall.
    - computerex 7y ago
      https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-censorship-tool https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo... https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark-zuckerberg/ https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark... https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-business-the-chinese-way-facebook-develops-a-censorship-tool/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-busi...
      - brycesbeard 7y ago
        These links are all from 2016 and reference the same leak from FB. Said leaks stressed that these ideas may never be implemented here we are, 3 years later. It sounds to me like FB discusses the idea and never implemented it. I’m not sure we can fault a company for exploring contingency plans with China...
        computerex 7y ago
        So what if they are from 3 years ago, and how would you know if these ideas were or aren't being implemented as we speak? My whole point was that FB on one hand claims that it doesn't want to remove provably false content because it is a publisher, but on the other hand is willing to cater to the Chinese government's request for censorship. Seems like FB is merely trying to maximize revenue no matter what the cost.
- bearcobra 7y ago
  Section 230 wasn't intended to apply to spaces where content was completely unfiltered. It was meant to give services like AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe the ability to to moderate content without inherently becoming liable for everything that was posted to their services. Ron Wyden is still in congress and has talked about this purpose, as a response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Forcing sites to have a completely laissez-faire approach to user generated content seems to avoid liability for that user content seems like something that would destroy the internet. Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence?
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >seems like something that would destroy the internet. I too remember "the destroyed" internet of yesteryear. We're in a much better place now that 5 companies control your opinion and your access to counter opinions. >Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence? No. We're talking about legal things that the PUBLISHER just doesn't like. Illegal things are always on the table for moderation. Don't try and make the argument about spam. You know very well that the issue here is a room of "content curators" artificially removing "trending" things because of political ideology, or government requested censorship, or just whoever bought the most ads that month.
aaomidi 7y ago
Nah it's actually up for society to decide what they want to allow. Nearly everyone agrees that political ads that lie are problematic. We the people think Facebook should do something about that. If they're unwilling to regulate themselves then we'll regulate it for them. This can range from putting guidelines all the way to breaking Facebook apart. It's Facebook's decision what they want their future to be.
- reroute1 7y ago
  wow some giant leaps made in this if you assume to speak as we the people... who appointed you as our spokesperson?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Who is this we? The last thing I want is some kind of Ministry of Truth, be it within Facebook or the US Government, deciding what is and isn’t allowable political speech.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The Ministry of Truth won't be deciding what is and isn't allowable political speech. They will tell you what is true. And you already have that.
- 121789 7y ago
  I'm supposedly part of your "we" and I completely disagree with you
  - cbluth 7y ago
    I think "we the people", as a society can and do decide what should and shouldnt be allowed as long as we can make a case, and the result can be a myriad of things.
    - 121789 7y ago
      Sure, and as part of the people, I think we should allow lies in political ads except in particular concrete cases (e.g. lying about polling dates).
greggman2 7y ago
Agreeing with you. Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 states: "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section." It also specifically says licensees can’t censor "material broadcast by any such candidate." so at least in the past the government decided tv stations can not censor. I know FB is not a TV station but it's probably the closest applicable law ATM.
- otterley 7y ago
  Attorney here! (This is not legal advice.) Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act is not an applicable law because Facebook is not an FCC licensee, nor does it need a license to operate. Also, it’s been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment and the courts have removed almost all of its teeth. Section 315 is practically dead law.
SquishyPanda23 7y ago
> Its up to Advertiser to make certain they are Not lying, The trolls placing the ads already know they're lying, so I'm not sure how that helps. Facebook also knows they're lying. The question is whether Facebook's right to make money from lies weighs more than the right of its users to not be manipulated by propagandists. It's not a super easy question in the abstract because of the weight we give in the US to freedom of speech. But we also give a lot of weight to fair elections, and people have seen the real damage the current policy has caused. For that reason the discussion is more nuanced than it used to be.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

Welcome to the Publisher vs Platform debate. The issue is in some cases “they” (FANNG, Reddit, Twitter, etc) want to be platforms like Facebook saying ads aren’t their responsibility, and in some cases are acting as publishers by censoring otherwise legal content they do not like or agree with. There are memes that will get you instantly suspended from Facebook, while you and Facebook argue no one could possibly monitor content! It shouldn’t be that the giants get to be both. Legally they are provided protections against content on their system - but historically this only applies to platforms where the content is entirely unfiltered. Think if your telco cut the call when you said the words “Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself” as a fictitious example, they shouldn’t get liability protection for things people say if they’re going to curate the content like that.

computerex 7y ago
Right, there is definitely a double standard. Facebook wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Look how hard they are trying to get into China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook#China They don't care about free speech or cooperating with one of the biggest enemy of Free Speech in the world (China) when there is potential revenue to be made.
- brycesbeard 7y ago
  Wait, what? The link you shared didn’t sound like Facebook is even trying to get into China. And the one reference to them building something with the Chinese govt is a link to a login paywall.
  - computerex 7y ago
    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38073949 https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-censorship-tool https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13720092/facebook-china-... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo... https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark-zuckerberg/ https://time.com/4581361/facebook-china-censorship-news-mark... https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-business-the-chinese-way-facebook-develops-a-censorship-tool/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/xiangwang/2016/11/24/doing-busi...
    - brycesbeard 7y ago
      These links are all from 2016 and reference the same leak from FB. Said leaks stressed that these ideas may never be implemented here we are, 3 years later. It sounds to me like FB discusses the idea and never implemented it. I’m not sure we can fault a company for exploring contingency plans with China...
      - computerex 7y ago
        So what if they are from 3 years ago, and how would you know if these ideas were or aren't being implemented as we speak? My whole point was that FB on one hand claims that it doesn't want to remove provably false content because it is a publisher, but on the other hand is willing to cater to the Chinese government's request for censorship. Seems like FB is merely trying to maximize revenue no matter what the cost.
bearcobra 7y ago
Section 230 wasn't intended to apply to spaces where content was completely unfiltered. It was meant to give services like AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe the ability to to moderate content without inherently becoming liable for everything that was posted to their services. Ron Wyden is still in congress and has talked about this purpose, as a response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Forcing sites to have a completely laissez-faire approach to user generated content seems to avoid liability for that user content seems like something that would destroy the internet. Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >seems like something that would destroy the internet. I too remember "the destroyed" internet of yesteryear. We're in a much better place now that 5 companies control your opinion and your access to counter opinions. >Like why would YC take on that risk to help us maintain a space free of spam or threats of violence? No. We're talking about legal things that the PUBLISHER just doesn't like. Illegal things are always on the table for moderation. Don't try and make the argument about spam. You know very well that the issue here is a room of "content curators" artificially removing "trending" things because of political ideology, or government requested censorship, or just whoever bought the most ads that month.

aaomidi 7y ago

Nah it's actually up for society to decide what they want to allow. Nearly everyone agrees that political ads that lie are problematic. We the people think Facebook should do something about that. If they're unwilling to regulate themselves then we'll regulate it for them. This can range from putting guidelines all the way to breaking Facebook apart. It's Facebook's decision what they want their future to be.

reroute1 7y ago
wow some giant leaps made in this if you assume to speak as we the people... who appointed you as our spokesperson?
remarkEon 7y ago
Who is this we? The last thing I want is some kind of Ministry of Truth, be it within Facebook or the US Government, deciding what is and isn’t allowable political speech.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The Ministry of Truth won't be deciding what is and isn't allowable political speech. They will tell you what is true. And you already have that.
121789 7y ago
I'm supposedly part of your "we" and I completely disagree with you
- cbluth 7y ago
  I think "we the people", as a society can and do decide what should and shouldnt be allowed as long as we can make a case, and the result can be a myriad of things.
  - 121789 7y ago
    Sure, and as part of the people, I think we should allow lies in political ads except in particular concrete cases (e.g. lying about polling dates).

greggman2 7y ago

Agreeing with you. Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 states: "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section." It also specifically says licensees can’t censor "material broadcast by any such candidate." so at least in the past the government decided tv stations can not censor. I know FB is not a TV station but it's probably the closest applicable law ATM.

otterley 7y ago
Attorney here! (This is not legal advice.) Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act is not an applicable law because Facebook is not an FCC licensee, nor does it need a license to operate. Also, it’s been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment and the courts have removed almost all of its teeth. Section 315 is practically dead law.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago

> Its up to Advertiser to make certain they are Not lying, The trolls placing the ads already know they're lying, so I'm not sure how that helps. Facebook also knows they're lying. The question is whether Facebook's right to make money from lies weighs more than the right of its users to not be manipulated by propagandists. It's not a super easy question in the abstract because of the weight we give in the US to freedom of speech. But we also give a lot of weight to fair elections, and people have seen the real damage the current policy has caused. For that reason the discussion is more nuanced than it used to be.