3 ms·

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. It

by k33n 6mo ago

The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial that it must allow lawsuits against itself to be promoted on its own platform is a bit naive and utopian. Its own TOS states that they won’t allow that.

gilrain 6mo ago
Let’s force them to be obligated to do that, then. “Just let them hurt people, and then let them hide that hurt” kind of sucks for society.
nkrisc 6mo ago
Fair enough. If they're not impartial then lets hold them accountable for the content published in their platform.
- wnevets 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- mc32 6mo ago
  To me that’s how it should be. They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves yet they should be liable or accountable for harm they are found guilty of.
  - pixl97 6mo ago
    >They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves This is not how it works when you're found guilty of committing harm. Tobacco companies are a good example of this.
    - mc32 6mo ago
      If the government mandates them then yes. If it’s not mandated they have the right to refuse service.
      - pixl97 6mo ago
        The bigger you get the more iffy it gets refusing service to others. Also it can and will be used against you in future civil and criminal cases.
        k33n 6mo ago
        Not really. Walmart trespasses shoppers every day.
- k33n 6mo ago
  I’m not against these companies losing their Section 230 immunity. Social media platforms are, in my personal opinion, publishers in their current form. If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.
  - wbobeirne 6mo ago
    You are relying on the wrong people to be able to understand that nuanced distinction.
  - TheCoelacanth 6mo ago
    Yes, if they went back to being chronological feeds of people you follow, then they should get to keep Section 230 immunity. When they are making editorial decisions about what to content to promote to you and what content to hide from you, then they should lose it.
  - pocksuppet 6mo ago
    Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. That was entirely made up by chronically online arguers. What it does say is you aren't liable for something someone else wrote. It doesn't create liability for things not covered by it. Guess who decides the order and contents of Facebook feeds? Facebook does. So they wouldn't be liable for someone writing a post saying "gas the jews" but they would still be liable for choosing to show it at the top of everyone's front page, if that was a choice, because the front page was choice-based rather than chronological.
    - k33n 6mo ago
      > Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. This is a direct quote from the statute: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” You were so confident, too.
schubidubiduba 6mo ago
TOS are not laws. In fact, they often partially violate laws and those parts are then void. In some countries, anything written in TOS that is not "expected to be there" is void.
- raincole 6mo ago
  No one says ToS are laws and especially not the parent commenter.
  - Fraterkes 6mo ago
    The parent comment brings up the ToS as an example of why it's naive to believe Meta is obligated to do something, but what Meta is obligated to do depends on the law.
    - raincole 6mo ago
      And which laws state that Meta is obligated to show ads like this?
      - Fraterkes 6mo ago
        Irrelevant. My point is that the parent comment did imply that the ToS created obligations for Meta in the way that laws do, which means your first comment was incorrect.
        raincole 6mo ago
        They absolutely didn't imply that. They implied that Meta doesn't want to show the ads so it's native to think Meta would just show the ads without being forced to. Which is correct.
- zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
  Ok but I don’t really see why this specific term would violate any law? Do we really want a society where platforms are forced to present speech that is harmful to them? If you own a store and I put a sign up on your wall advertising a rival store wouldn’t it be reasonable for you to disallow that?
3form 6mo ago
Maybe, but so what? Your remark lacks a conclusion. Mine is that it could then well be required to do so by law. Companies are not individuals, so I don't think they are owed any freedoms beyond what is best for utility they can provide.
iinnPP 6mo ago
I tend to agree with you on this. I wanted to add however that Meta itself lets so many TOS violating ads in, that it seems like special treatment for ads that are much less undesirable than the ads normally pushed. It's not just a Meta issue either.
pixl97 6mo ago
[flagged]
streetfighter64 6mo ago
The idea that a company can override laws via its TOS is a bit strange.
- BeetleB 6mo ago
  Genuinely curious. By not allowing a specific type of ad, what law are they breaking?
Larrikin 6mo ago
[flagged]
mirashii 6mo ago
That idea was not expressed in the article, only the fact that the ads were removed. This is worth covering, especially when coupled with the context for what ads Meta regularly does allow. One does not have to believe that they're obligated to do so while also believing that it's incredibly scummy behavior that consumers should be aware of and question. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
freejazz 6mo ago
Okay? They're exactly the assholes everyone says they are. That's the point.
hashmap 6mo ago
at certain scales, reality has to win out over whatever ideal you have in your head about how things should be. facebook is massive, a lot of society is on it, and its a problem to make recourse invisible to people most affected by the thing stealing their attention.
Zigurd 6mo ago
There are so many ads for nostrums, cults, get rich quick scams, and other junk that violate TOS, that Meta has a legitimacy problem with their TOS.
swiftcoder 6mo ago
> The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial Is their defence of Section 230 protections not in part rooted in that claim of impartiality?
- nradov 6mo ago
  No. Section 230 doesn't mention anything about impartiality.
  - swiftcoder 6mo ago
    It indeed doesn't, but conservative lawmakers signalled repeatedly that they were unhappy about Meta's protection under section 230 if their moderation policies were not politically neutral
hansvm 6mo ago
Companies have to inform affected individuals of data breaches, especially when HIPAA gets involved. Brokers have to inform clients of transaction errors. Auto manufacturers have to inform owners of recalls. Retirement funds have to inform plan participants of lawsuits involving those funds. You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad precedent in favor of forcing a malicious actor to inform its victims that they might be entitled to a small fraction of their losses in compensation.
- zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
  Well we aren’t discussing the government requiring meta to inform users. We are discussing whether meta can choose which private actors’ ads to allow. It would seem silly that a platform would be forced to allow all ads.
  - hansvm 6mo ago
    Aha, how clever. We aren't discussing whether they can be forced to display messaging; we're discussing whether they're going to later get slapped down for blocking that messaging. I get that the distinction matters a bit from time to time (court cases keep blurring the line in the US though), but: 1. With all the other shit that makes it through the filter, this was pretty clearly a targeted, strategic takedown rather than some sort of broad "we don't allow bad ads on the platform." Allowing "all ads" isn't the thing being argued; it's allowing "this ad." 2. The non-offensive idea of "abusers shouldn't be allowed to deceive and gaslight their victims" is pretty strongly in favor of this being a bad move on Meta's part if it was an intentional act. Maybe it shakes out fine for them legally in this particular instance, but the fact that as a society we routinely require companies and individuals to behave with more appearance of moral standing than this suggests that blocking this particular ad is over the line, and it's neither naive nor utopianistic to think so. Even if it's legally in the light-grey, it's an abuse of power worth talking about, and hopefully it inspires more people to leave their platform.
dcrazy 6mo ago
This is why courts are empowered to infringe upon the rights of parties to the case.

by k33n 6mo ago

gilrain 6mo ago

Let’s force them to be obligated to do that, then. “Just let them hurt people, and then let them hide that hurt” kind of sucks for society.

nkrisc 6mo ago

Fair enough. If they're not impartial then lets hold them accountable for the content published in their platform.

wnevets 6mo ago
[flagged]
mc32 6mo ago
To me that’s how it should be. They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves yet they should be liable or accountable for harm they are found guilty of.
- pixl97 6mo ago
  >They shouldn’t have to run ads against themselves This is not how it works when you're found guilty of committing harm. Tobacco companies are a good example of this.
  - mc32 6mo ago
    If the government mandates them then yes. If it’s not mandated they have the right to refuse service.
    - pixl97 6mo ago
      The bigger you get the more iffy it gets refusing service to others. Also it can and will be used against you in future civil and criminal cases.
      - k33n 6mo ago
        Not really. Walmart trespasses shoppers every day.
k33n 6mo ago
I’m not against these companies losing their Section 230 immunity. Social media platforms are, in my personal opinion, publishers in their current form. If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.
- wbobeirne 6mo ago
  You are relying on the wrong people to be able to understand that nuanced distinction.
- TheCoelacanth 6mo ago
  Yes, if they went back to being chronological feeds of people you follow, then they should get to keep Section 230 immunity. When they are making editorial decisions about what to content to promote to you and what content to hide from you, then they should lose it.
- pocksuppet 6mo ago
  Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. That was entirely made up by chronically online arguers. What it does say is you aren't liable for something someone else wrote. It doesn't create liability for things not covered by it. Guess who decides the order and contents of Facebook feeds? Facebook does. So they wouldn't be liable for someone writing a post saying "gas the jews" but they would still be liable for choosing to show it at the top of everyone's front page, if that was a choice, because the front page was choice-based rather than chronological.
  - k33n 6mo ago
    > Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. This is a direct quote from the statute: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” You were so confident, too.

schubidubiduba 6mo ago

TOS are not laws. In fact, they often partially violate laws and those parts are then void. In some countries, anything written in TOS that is not "expected to be there" is void.

raincole 6mo ago
No one says ToS are laws and especially not the parent commenter.
- Fraterkes 6mo ago
  The parent comment brings up the ToS as an example of why it's naive to believe Meta is obligated to do something, but what Meta is obligated to do depends on the law.
  - raincole 6mo ago
    And which laws state that Meta is obligated to show ads like this?
    - Fraterkes 6mo ago
      Irrelevant. My point is that the parent comment did imply that the ToS created obligations for Meta in the way that laws do, which means your first comment was incorrect.
      - raincole 6mo ago
        They absolutely didn't imply that. They implied that Meta doesn't want to show the ads so it's native to think Meta would just show the ads without being forced to. Which is correct.
zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
Ok but I don’t really see why this specific term would violate any law? Do we really want a society where platforms are forced to present speech that is harmful to them? If you own a store and I put a sign up on your wall advertising a rival store wouldn’t it be reasonable for you to disallow that?

3form 6mo ago

Maybe, but so what? Your remark lacks a conclusion. Mine is that it could then well be required to do so by law. Companies are not individuals, so I don't think they are owed any freedoms beyond what is best for utility they can provide.

iinnPP 6mo ago

I tend to agree with you on this. I wanted to add however that Meta itself lets so many TOS violating ads in, that it seems like special treatment for ads that are much less undesirable than the ads normally pushed. It's not just a Meta issue either.

pixl97 6mo ago

[flagged]

streetfighter64 6mo ago

The idea that a company can override laws via its TOS is a bit strange.

BeetleB 6mo ago
Genuinely curious. By not allowing a specific type of ad, what law are they breaking?

Larrikin 6mo ago

[flagged]

mirashii 6mo ago

That idea was not expressed in the article, only the fact that the ads were removed. This is worth covering, especially when coupled with the context for what ads Meta regularly does allow. One does not have to believe that they're obligated to do so while also believing that it's incredibly scummy behavior that consumers should be aware of and question. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

freejazz 6mo ago

Okay? They're exactly the assholes everyone says they are. That's the point.

hashmap 6mo ago

at certain scales, reality has to win out over whatever ideal you have in your head about how things should be. facebook is massive, a lot of society is on it, and its a problem to make recourse invisible to people most affected by the thing stealing their attention.

Zigurd 6mo ago

There are so many ads for nostrums, cults, get rich quick scams, and other junk that violate TOS, that Meta has a legitimacy problem with their TOS.

swiftcoder 6mo ago

> The idea that Meta is obligated to be so impartial Is their defence of Section 230 protections not in part rooted in that claim of impartiality?

nradov 6mo ago
No. Section 230 doesn't mention anything about impartiality.
- swiftcoder 6mo ago
  It indeed doesn't, but conservative lawmakers signalled repeatedly that they were unhappy about Meta's protection under section 230 if their moderation policies were not politically neutral

hansvm 6mo ago

Companies have to inform affected individuals of data breaches, especially when HIPAA gets involved. Brokers have to inform clients of transaction errors. Auto manufacturers have to inform owners of recalls. Retirement funds have to inform plan participants of lawsuits involving those funds. You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad precedent in favor of forcing a malicious actor to inform its victims that they might be entitled to a small fraction of their losses in compensation.

zeroonetwothree 6mo ago
Well we aren’t discussing the government requiring meta to inform users. We are discussing whether meta can choose which private actors’ ads to allow. It would seem silly that a platform would be forced to allow all ads.
- hansvm 6mo ago
  Aha, how clever. We aren't discussing whether they can be forced to display messaging; we're discussing whether they're going to later get slapped down for blocking that messaging. I get that the distinction matters a bit from time to time (court cases keep blurring the line in the US though), but: 1. With all the other shit that makes it through the filter, this was pretty clearly a targeted, strategic takedown rather than some sort of broad "we don't allow bad ads on the platform." Allowing "all ads" isn't the thing being argued; it's allowing "this ad." 2. The non-offensive idea of "abusers shouldn't be allowed to deceive and gaslight their victims" is pretty strongly in favor of this being a bad move on Meta's part if it was an intentional act. Maybe it shakes out fine for them legally in this particular instance, but the fact that as a society we routinely require companies and individuals to behave with more appearance of moral standing than this suggests that blocking this particular ad is over the line, and it's neither naive nor utopianistic to think so. Even if it's legally in the light-grey, it's an abuse of power worth talking about, and hopefully it inspires more people to leave their platform.

dcrazy 6mo ago

This is why courts are empowered to infringe upon the rights of parties to the case.