5 ms·

Why isn't anyone focused on the fact that, anywhere in the world, there are no consequences for political lies? Politicians can, and usually do, lie on tv, on t

Why isn't anyone focused on the fact that, anywhere in the world, there are no consequences for political lies? Politicians can, and usually do, lie on tv, on the radio, on billboards, on their entire career and nothing happens. Why is this a platform problem?

beeskneecaps 7y ago
Because Facebook knows that it is a problem and instead of taking a stand against the propagation of misinformation, they’re leaning in and exploiting it for profit.
- hans1729 7y ago
  They're not exloiting it, they're just being a company. Companies have one goal and one goal only: maximize revenue. The idea that it's up to them to define or moderate social standards without being legally obliged to do so is absurd to me; like your parent-comment said, this is not inherently a platform-problem, yet here we are, treating it as such.
  - beeskneecaps 7y ago
    I agree that their only goal is to maximize profits. I think they’re missing the opportunity to be a unifying force in a highly divided country. Targeted, unmoderated attack ads do not have a positive unifying effect.
  - basch 7y ago
    They could make more money shaping speech and media consumption more intelligently and purposefully, as opposed to the charade of playing the part of a neutral party and wire operator. Would be more honest for them to just come out and say, "as a collective we have some bias, and we have decided in certain areas that it makes the world a better place to amplify and reinforce that bias, including but not limited to: yyy, zzz." They could shape elections by their choosing, instead of elections being won by whoever uses Fb as a tool. They just need to come to terms with their place in the world exerting editorial voice, like the WSJ or NYT.
    - username90 7y ago
      > They could shape elections by their choosing You are basically asking for the government to break you up if you do that. The only reason the giant tech companies are allowed to exist in such powerful positions is because they act as mostly objective third parties.
      - basch 7y ago
        How many companies has the United States government broken up since AT&T in 1982? I disagree with the premise of your statement in so many ways. The tech companies arent special, and if facebook is actually a publishing company, not only does it have a ton of competitors, but there are other consolidating entities that are scary big, that the government allows to merge. Facebook should be broken up because, despite more options than ever for reading, people CHOOSE to consume it? It would make more sense to use tobacco company style arguments against Facebook, that it is targeting people with an addictive product that is harmful to health and society. If one bought into that argument, the remedy would be to make the class of their actions illegal, not split them in half. Two smaller companies with the same behavior wouldnt be better, and realistically there would be nothing stopping everyone from consolidating back to one of the two products.
- frockington1 7y ago
  I'm not normally a Facebook fan, however in this case I think its admirable they are defending free speech. The reason are probably to reduce potential costs but I'm not complaining. Free speech is a core American value, and it's nice to see a large company publicly take a stand for it
ckastner 7y ago
Apart from the fact that there often are consequences to political lies (even if indirect), these platforms dramatically amplify the effects of these lies, and given that the platforms profit from it, there is a huge conflict of interest.
- bl4ckm0r3 7y ago
  The same should apply for TV and i don't see anyone prosecuting Fox News (one of many) for amplifying political lies. Also could you explain the, practical, consequences to political lies? I personally don't remember having seen many, compared to, let's say, anyone else working in any other industry. People get prosecuted for having lied on a resume...why is a politician allowed to stay in the "system" after having just lied on facts and numbers?
  - hans1729 7y ago
    >People get prosecuted for having lied on a resume...why is a politician allowed to stay in the "system" after having just lied on facts and numbers? Because politics is not an industry, it's the unique dynamic of ruling and power. In this case: the politician is allowed to stay in the system because he enjoys enough political support, either by the public or through other key supporters. This seems like a good opportunity to refer to CGP Greys "the rules for rulers": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
  - cpr 7y ago
    Geez, why pick on Fox? The other MSM are even more egregious.
L-four 7y ago
Auditability for non-first parties is all most impossible. With the other mediums it’s easy to record what was said and rebuke. Digital ads only exist for the target audience.
DauphinWaffles 7y ago
Its a crime to mislead the public in the UK.
- hans1729 7y ago
  Interesting. Honestly asking: was someone held accountable for the 350-million-pounds thing?
- frockington1 7y ago
  In America the first (and most important) amendment is freedom of speech. As an American company I don't find it surprising that their default stance would be free speech
- DonaldFisk 7y ago
  No it isn't. There was a petition to make it a specific offence ( https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200372 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200372 ). However, the Government responded by pointing out that one of the seven principles of public life is "Holders of public office should be truthful." There don't appear to be any legal consequences for not upholding that or any of the other six principles. There is an offence of Misconduct in Public Office ( https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-offi... ), in which dishonesty is mentioned, but only in the context of fraud and similar behaviour.

beeskneecaps 7y ago

Because Facebook knows that it is a problem and instead of taking a stand against the propagation of misinformation, they’re leaning in and exploiting it for profit.

hans1729 7y ago
They're not exloiting it, they're just being a company. Companies have one goal and one goal only: maximize revenue. The idea that it's up to them to define or moderate social standards without being legally obliged to do so is absurd to me; like your parent-comment said, this is not inherently a platform-problem, yet here we are, treating it as such.
- beeskneecaps 7y ago
  I agree that their only goal is to maximize profits. I think they’re missing the opportunity to be a unifying force in a highly divided country. Targeted, unmoderated attack ads do not have a positive unifying effect.
- basch 7y ago
  They could make more money shaping speech and media consumption more intelligently and purposefully, as opposed to the charade of playing the part of a neutral party and wire operator. Would be more honest for them to just come out and say, "as a collective we have some bias, and we have decided in certain areas that it makes the world a better place to amplify and reinforce that bias, including but not limited to: yyy, zzz." They could shape elections by their choosing, instead of elections being won by whoever uses Fb as a tool. They just need to come to terms with their place in the world exerting editorial voice, like the WSJ or NYT.
  - username90 7y ago
    > They could shape elections by their choosing You are basically asking for the government to break you up if you do that. The only reason the giant tech companies are allowed to exist in such powerful positions is because they act as mostly objective third parties.
    - basch 7y ago
      How many companies has the United States government broken up since AT&T in 1982? I disagree with the premise of your statement in so many ways. The tech companies arent special, and if facebook is actually a publishing company, not only does it have a ton of competitors, but there are other consolidating entities that are scary big, that the government allows to merge. Facebook should be broken up because, despite more options than ever for reading, people CHOOSE to consume it? It would make more sense to use tobacco company style arguments against Facebook, that it is targeting people with an addictive product that is harmful to health and society. If one bought into that argument, the remedy would be to make the class of their actions illegal, not split them in half. Two smaller companies with the same behavior wouldnt be better, and realistically there would be nothing stopping everyone from consolidating back to one of the two products.
frockington1 7y ago
I'm not normally a Facebook fan, however in this case I think its admirable they are defending free speech. The reason are probably to reduce potential costs but I'm not complaining. Free speech is a core American value, and it's nice to see a large company publicly take a stand for it

ckastner 7y ago

Apart from the fact that there often are consequences to political lies (even if indirect), these platforms dramatically amplify the effects of these lies, and given that the platforms profit from it, there is a huge conflict of interest.

bl4ckm0r3 7y ago
The same should apply for TV and i don't see anyone prosecuting Fox News (one of many) for amplifying political lies. Also could you explain the, practical, consequences to political lies? I personally don't remember having seen many, compared to, let's say, anyone else working in any other industry. People get prosecuted for having lied on a resume...why is a politician allowed to stay in the "system" after having just lied on facts and numbers?
- hans1729 7y ago
  >People get prosecuted for having lied on a resume...why is a politician allowed to stay in the "system" after having just lied on facts and numbers? Because politics is not an industry, it's the unique dynamic of ruling and power. In this case: the politician is allowed to stay in the system because he enjoys enough political support, either by the public or through other key supporters. This seems like a good opportunity to refer to CGP Greys "the rules for rulers": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- cpr 7y ago
  Geez, why pick on Fox? The other MSM are even more egregious.

L-four 7y ago

Auditability for non-first parties is all most impossible. With the other mediums it’s easy to record what was said and rebuke. Digital ads only exist for the target audience.

DauphinWaffles 7y ago

Its a crime to mislead the public in the UK.

hans1729 7y ago
Interesting. Honestly asking: was someone held accountable for the 350-million-pounds thing?
frockington1 7y ago
In America the first (and most important) amendment is freedom of speech. As an American company I don't find it surprising that their default stance would be free speech
DonaldFisk 7y ago
No it isn't. There was a petition to make it a specific offence ( https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200372 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200372 ). However, the Government responded by pointing out that one of the seven principles of public life is "Holders of public office should be truthful." There don't appear to be any legal consequences for not upholding that or any of the other six principles. There is an offence of Misconduct in Public Office ( https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-offi... ), in which dishonesty is mentioned, but only in the context of fraud and similar behaviour.