6 ms·

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company

by drewrv 7y ago

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company should have that amount of power. The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
> The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up. Luckily you don't need logic when you can just throw money at lobbying. Sadly, this is incredibly effective in the US today.
- Seenso 7y ago
  > Luckily you don't need logic when you can just throw money at lobbying. Sadly, this is incredibly effective in the US today. Even if that's true, it might not work for Facebook. The politicians that Facebook would need to lobby may feel personally threatened by Facebook's power over the electoral process. Penny-ante campaign contributions and a few face to face meetings probably aren't enough to overcome that.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > Penny-ante campaign contributions and a few face to face meetings probably aren't enough to overcome that. True, but a promise to use that power to benefit particular politicians probably would.
farisjarrah 7y ago
While I agree Facebook is doing a bad job with regards to political advertising, I am actually really glad facebook isnt stepping in and deciding whats truthful or not. Does anyone really think that we should give Facebook any power over our political system or give them the power to be the gatekeepers of what political ads we see? I think facebook should do what twitter did and just totally get out of the political ads game, however, since theyre not, call me crazy but I am kinda glad they arent deciding whats "right" and whats "wrong". Facebook has already proved to us over and over that they don't know the difference between right and wrong and that they make decisions that are bad for society.
- spinningslate 7y ago
  I think that's GP's point. The problem isn't that FB has declined taking executive power over deciding what's truth. The problem is that FB has too much influence. So the answer isn't to pressurize FB into taking even more power: the answer is to reduce its dominance. Of course, that requires a political system motivated by doing the right thing for the country's citizens. As opposed to being controlled (sorry, lobbied) by monopolistic corporations and, in particular, where few politicians dare take a stance against FB for fear of the misinformation campaign that would inevitably ensue. On Facebook.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  Disagree. Since they have chosen to platform those ads, they should at least be held to the same standards as networks and not show ads that are provably false. It would be better if they didn't platform them, or better yet, they didn't have that much potential influence in the first place.
  - sp332 7y ago
    I would certainly rather have someone outside the company making that decision. Make the FEC do it.
  - Diederich 7y ago
    > same standards as networks and not show ads that are provably false I was going to ask you for a reference on this, because I was pretty sure that no such standard existed. I was quite wrong! https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadc... "Broadcasters are responsible for selecting the broadcast material that airs on their stations, including advertisements. The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading. The FTC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material. You can file a complaint with the FTC online or call toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357)." So we have: "The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care" and "The FTC has primary responsibility for determining" So...maybe we should give online advertising the same treatment? As an aside: this FCC regulation surprises me; I'm quite aware that there are numerous limits to free speech, but I didn't expect this to be one of them. I've always been an ardent believer in expansive free speech, and I still am, though age has allowed me to accept more limits. Though it doesn't feel right to me, the negative impact of (largely?) unregulated online political advertising is big and getting bigger.
root_axis 7y ago
How does breaking up Facebook change anything in this context? Unless you're suggesting that the government seize and shut down the facebook domain and brand in addition to breaking up Facebook.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  I see two issues/potential strategies with Facebook. 1) Facbook could be broken apart from Instagram and WhatsApp. 2) Mark Zuckerberg is not beholden even to shareholders due to the rights of the shares he owns. Restructure the companies so he still owns the same % of the companies but has the same voting rights as any other shareholder.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Those don't really have any effect in the context of political ads on Facebook.
2sk21 7y ago
The level of power that Facebook has over global discourse is just chilling.
LanceH 7y ago
I think logically the government shouldn't be threatening anyone with a breakup based upon speech. I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion. I would rather risk total garbage in the public forum than establish a ministry of truth.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Facebook is the Ministry of Truth. They even throw things down the Memory Hole.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Oh man, if not exactly the memory hole it's the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard", and they can claim their algorithm that highlights stuff in your newsfeed just decided something wasn't important (but it would've been there if you scrolled long enough or clicked some sub-menu...).
- jorams 7y ago
  > I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion. If fact-checking political advertising gives them too much power, and not doing so is something they themselves decided on, then they already have that power. If no one company should have that amount of power, they should have that power taken away from them. The bigger next step is that any alternative to breaking them up would be against their freedom of speech. I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative that wouldn't, but there might be one.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
necrophos 7y ago
I don't see the logical conclusion of breaking up from that. Even if you have 2 separate companies - Instagram and Facebook - neither should have that power. Twitter shouldnt be deciding what is political advertising either. The logical conclusion is that the government steps in write laws on what social media should do.

by drewrv 7y ago

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

> The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up. Luckily you don't need logic when you can just throw money at lobbying. Sadly, this is incredibly effective in the US today.

Seenso 7y ago
> Luckily you don't need logic when you can just throw money at lobbying. Sadly, this is incredibly effective in the US today. Even if that's true, it might not work for Facebook. The politicians that Facebook would need to lobby may feel personally threatened by Facebook's power over the electoral process. Penny-ante campaign contributions and a few face to face meetings probably aren't enough to overcome that.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > Penny-ante campaign contributions and a few face to face meetings probably aren't enough to overcome that. True, but a promise to use that power to benefit particular politicians probably would.

farisjarrah 7y ago

While I agree Facebook is doing a bad job with regards to political advertising, I am actually really glad facebook isnt stepping in and deciding whats truthful or not. Does anyone really think that we should give Facebook any power over our political system or give them the power to be the gatekeepers of what political ads we see? I think facebook should do what twitter did and just totally get out of the political ads game, however, since theyre not, call me crazy but I am kinda glad they arent deciding whats "right" and whats "wrong". Facebook has already proved to us over and over that they don't know the difference between right and wrong and that they make decisions that are bad for society.

spinningslate 7y ago
I think that's GP's point. The problem isn't that FB has declined taking executive power over deciding what's truth. The problem is that FB has too much influence. So the answer isn't to pressurize FB into taking even more power: the answer is to reduce its dominance. Of course, that requires a political system motivated by doing the right thing for the country's citizens. As opposed to being controlled (sorry, lobbied) by monopolistic corporations and, in particular, where few politicians dare take a stance against FB for fear of the misinformation campaign that would inevitably ensue. On Facebook.
arrosenberg 7y ago
Disagree. Since they have chosen to platform those ads, they should at least be held to the same standards as networks and not show ads that are provably false. It would be better if they didn't platform them, or better yet, they didn't have that much potential influence in the first place.
- sp332 7y ago
  I would certainly rather have someone outside the company making that decision. Make the FEC do it.
- Diederich 7y ago
  > same standards as networks and not show ads that are provably false I was going to ask you for a reference on this, because I was pretty sure that no such standard existed. I was quite wrong! https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadc... "Broadcasters are responsible for selecting the broadcast material that airs on their stations, including advertisements. The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading. The FTC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material. You can file a complaint with the FTC online or call toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357)." So we have: "The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care" and "The FTC has primary responsibility for determining" So...maybe we should give online advertising the same treatment? As an aside: this FCC regulation surprises me; I'm quite aware that there are numerous limits to free speech, but I didn't expect this to be one of them. I've always been an ardent believer in expansive free speech, and I still am, though age has allowed me to accept more limits. Though it doesn't feel right to me, the negative impact of (largely?) unregulated online political advertising is big and getting bigger.

root_axis 7y ago

How does breaking up Facebook change anything in this context? Unless you're suggesting that the government seize and shut down the facebook domain and brand in addition to breaking up Facebook.

wavefunction 7y ago
I see two issues/potential strategies with Facebook. 1) Facbook could be broken apart from Instagram and WhatsApp. 2) Mark Zuckerberg is not beholden even to shareholders due to the rights of the shares he owns. Restructure the companies so he still owns the same % of the companies but has the same voting rights as any other shareholder.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Those don't really have any effect in the context of political ads on Facebook.

2sk21 7y ago

The level of power that Facebook has over global discourse is just chilling.

LanceH 7y ago

I think logically the government shouldn't be threatening anyone with a breakup based upon speech. I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion. I would rather risk total garbage in the public forum than establish a ministry of truth.

jschwartzi 7y ago
Facebook is the Ministry of Truth. They even throw things down the Memory Hole.
- netsharc 7y ago
  Oh man, if not exactly the memory hole it's the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard", and they can claim their algorithm that highlights stuff in your newsfeed just decided something wasn't important (but it would've been there if you scrolled long enough or clicked some sub-menu...).
jorams 7y ago
> I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion. If fact-checking political advertising gives them too much power, and not doing so is something they themselves decided on, then they already have that power. If no one company should have that amount of power, they should have that power taken away from them. The bigger next step is that any alternative to breaking them up would be against their freedom of speech. I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative that wouldn't, but there might be one.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

necrophos 7y ago

I don't see the logical conclusion of breaking up from that. Even if you have 2 separate companies - Instagram and Facebook - neither should have that power. Twitter shouldnt be deciding what is political advertising either. The logical conclusion is that the government steps in write laws on what social media should do.