3 ms·
Could you please be specific about which part of the reasoning given in the article you think is not solid? The company insists that it does not want to be in
by brlewis 7y ago
Could you please be specific about which part of the reasoning given in the article you think is not solid?
The company insists that it does not want to be in the position of judging what is true and false, with its head of communications, Nick Clegg, saying that it was not an “appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny”.
- CaptainZapp 7y agoThis is, in my opinion, no solid reasoning. It's more like the weazeling out, which is so very typical for Facebook. The reasoning does not stand up for ads, which are very obvious, proofable lies and which they still refuse to withdraw.
- brlewis 7y agoIn the general case, judging obvious vs non-obvious isn't much easier than judging true vs false.