3 ms·

FTC doesn't explicitly have a truth in advertising regulation, it's just that corporations can be held liable for damages in case its advertising misleads consu

by bhupy 7y ago

FTC doesn't explicitly have a truth in advertising regulation, it's just that corporations can be held liable for damages in case its advertising misleads consumers, after the fact. Politicians lie all the time, and sometimes even do the opposite of their campaign (HW's famous "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" comes to mind). It'd be pretty hard to make the case that voters who experienced an ensuing tax increase could sue the US government for damages.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> corporations can be held liable for damages in case its advertising misleads consumers, after the fact. I don't see the distinction. It wouldn't make sense to pay penalties for violating regulations before the fact. > It'd be pretty hard to make the case that voters who experienced an ensuing tax increase could sue the US government for damages. Why would the US government be liable? It is the campaign that is liable. It would be straightforward to penalize a campaign in proportion to the amount of money spent on the misleading ad and hold the proceeds in a fund for use by other campaigns.
- bhupy 7y ago
  My mistake, you're correct, it would be the campaign and not the government that might be held liable. The point still stands: if you think that voters can hold a campaign liable for not fulfilling campaign promises, I wish you...all the best in making that case. Likewise, if the New York Times publishes information that's later found to be incorrect, and does not publish a retraction, I wish you all the best in pursuing legal action against them. This was tried in NYTimes v Sullivan, and the NYTimes ended up triumphant. You'd have to prove "actual malice", the burden for which is high enough to be mostly infeasible. In any case, it would never be Facebook that would have to facilitate this kind of legal action. Any sort of legal action would have to be between the individual/group that originated such a post, and the individual/group that wishes to seek damages for "misinformation". Facebook is just the medium.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > if you think that voters can hold a campaign liable I see no reason why they would be any less successful than other FTC enforcements. > This was tried in NYTimes v Sullivan, and the NYTimes ended up triumphant. If there's no law against it, I don't see why they shouldn't be. > In any case, it would never be Facebook that would have to facilitate this kind of legal action. I never said they would. I argued against the slippery slope objection to enforcing truthful advertising.

by bhupy 7y ago

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> corporations can be held liable for damages in case its advertising misleads consumers, after the fact. I don't see the distinction. It wouldn't make sense to pay penalties for violating regulations before the fact. > It'd be pretty hard to make the case that voters who experienced an ensuing tax increase could sue the US government for damages. Why would the US government be liable? It is the campaign that is liable. It would be straightforward to penalize a campaign in proportion to the amount of money spent on the misleading ad and hold the proceeds in a fund for use by other campaigns.

bhupy 7y ago
My mistake, you're correct, it would be the campaign and not the government that might be held liable. The point still stands: if you think that voters can hold a campaign liable for not fulfilling campaign promises, I wish you...all the best in making that case. Likewise, if the New York Times publishes information that's later found to be incorrect, and does not publish a retraction, I wish you all the best in pursuing legal action against them. This was tried in NYTimes v Sullivan, and the NYTimes ended up triumphant. You'd have to prove "actual malice", the burden for which is high enough to be mostly infeasible. In any case, it would never be Facebook that would have to facilitate this kind of legal action. Any sort of legal action would have to be between the individual/group that originated such a post, and the individual/group that wishes to seek damages for "misinformation". Facebook is just the medium.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > if you think that voters can hold a campaign liable I see no reason why they would be any less successful than other FTC enforcements. > This was tried in NYTimes v Sullivan, and the NYTimes ended up triumphant. If there's no law against it, I don't see why they shouldn't be. > In any case, it would never be Facebook that would have to facilitate this kind of legal action. I never said they would. I argued against the slippery slope objection to enforcing truthful advertising.