adthrowaway123

5 ms·

1.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
This is irrelevant - there are all kinds of speech that are generally accepted to be outside the scope of free speech. Political speech that includes false claims does not fall under that and never has. If taking down "false speech&q
2.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
How would this be any different from advertising on certain shows or talk radio that peddle huge amounts of BS and are almost exclusively consumed by gullible people? Again, the point is that the standards followed by broadcast TV are highe
3.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
Civil liability is an entirely different matter altogether but what's problematic about false advertising isn't that the claim was false, but more that you're breaking a promise. This isn't about free speech, but more a
4.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
The blatantly false part I'm talking about isn't "Mark Zuckerberg is endorsing Trump" which everyone understands to be the obviously false statement, but the subsequent argument that is still being repeated here that &qu
5.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
This is a red herring - there's no law against untruthful political advertising. Such a law, broadly enforced, would likely be unconstitutional and how do you suppose that you enforce it? Also, if that was the law, it wouldn't b
6.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
If there were rules governing political ads in social media, they would look very much like Facebook's policy. At least TV ads (which are more tightly regulated due to the use of radio spectrum, which are public goods) are regulated a
7.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
This was dealt with in other media the same way that Facebook decided to deal with it. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct... TV networks are required to air even untruthful ads as no
8.
by adthrowaway123 7y ago
This was pointed out elsewhere but needs to be repeated: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct... The regulations exist in the exact opposite direction as you claim - TV networks are re