I understand the challenges coming from trying to decide if users are genuine people, or genuinely motivated to behave the way that they are. I also understand

I understand the challenges coming from trying to decide if users are genuine people, or genuinely motivated to behave the way that they are. I also understand that the motives imparted onto Facebook here may or may not be accurate. However, this: > the network’s use of Pages to create false personas and fake engagement fell into a serious loophole in the company’s rules. Facebook’s policies to ensure authenticity focus on accounts: users can only have one account and it must employ their “real” name. But Facebook has no such rule for Pages, which can perform many of the same engagements that accounts can, including liking, sharing and commenting. Just seems like a cut-and-dry description of a serious problem on the platform. In the Honduras example, they said that a single user was responsible for hundreds of business accounts, all of which were liking the president's pages. That is a serious problem and a trivial one to fix. If businesses don't fall under the same criteria of having a one-to-one relationship with a real human, then you can't let them participate in "democratic" processes such as "liking" things, when they're competing with real humans. Something as simple as letting them "like" things, but not letting it contribute to the like count, would go a long way.