Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks United States Politics

Zuckerberg Doubles Down on Facebook Political Ads Policy After Twitter Ban (thehill.com) 177

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has ardently defended Facebook's controversial political advertising policy hours after Twitter took a shot at its rival while announcing it will ban all political ads from its platform. From a report: "Although I've considered whether we should not carry [political] ads in the past, and I'll continue to do so, on balance so far I've thought we should continue," Zuckerberg told investors on a quarterly earnings call. "Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates," he added. Facebook directed The Hill to Zuckerberg's remarks in response to an inquiry about Twitter's announcement. Zuckerberg and Facebook have been hit with a firestorm of criticism this month over its policy allowing politicians to lie in advertisements. For several weeks, Zuckerberg has engaged in an unusually public charm offensive as he seeks to defend Facebook's ad practices against critics who have accused the company of profiting off of and even encouraging political misinformation. Zuckerberg in the month of October offered interviews on Fox News and NBC, gave a public speech at Georgetown University, and testified before Congress about his view that Facebook should build policies to promote "free expression." Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tore into those arguments with the series of tweets announcing his company's policy change.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Doubles Down on Facebook Political Ads Policy After Twitter Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:21AM (#59365822)

    You can only talk about yourself in your ads, political or commercial.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:27AM (#59365852)

      How about you don't get to police what others talk about?

      • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:49AM (#59365982)

        How about you don't get to police what others talk about?

        How about we have an intellectual debate between candidates and their constituents with effective feedback instead of the constant stream of shit slinging the parent is referring to?

        There is no other way to describe a US election now other than Political Civil War, and honestly that stupid shit needs to stop no matter where you stand in politics.

        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          Yeah, it's sad. Allowing someone to police what others can say is even worse.

          Power over others is the problem. If no one had it and no one could get it, then politics would go back to being about maintaining roads. Serving the public completely lost out to policing each other and giveaways of others' money a long time ago. That's why we are poorly served and why people are mad at each other all the time.

        • by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @10:09AM (#59366106) Journal

          > How about we have an intellectual debate between candidates and their constituents with effective feedback instead of the constant stream of shit slinging the parent is referring to?

          Ok, show us all how.

          >a US election now other than Political Civil War,

          That is every election. The point is that you rely on the ballot and soap box so you don't use the ammo box. Every election, especially presidential, are like a simulated civil war. Head count what each side has.

          This happens throughout history when a nation or society goes through some kind of change. Whether you like it or not Trump is a symptom of change. Normally, these kind of cultural shifts would result in an actual war but we catharticly argue over politics on the internet instead of forming ranks to march on a territory because of their political leaning (what happened preceding Civil War).

          I think the Electoral College is genius by allowing the minority some representation in the Executive. It's cathartic to have your guy win against the odds and to do things you want. If that minority never won, their resentment would grow until they decided the soap and ballot box have failed. We don't have that.

          • The trouble with what you say is that "it's all fair in love and war", including any dirty tricks - has become the norm, and that's bad.
            • The trouble with what you say is that "it's all fair in love and war", including any dirty tricks - has become the norm, and that's bad.

              That whole love/war concept is hundreds of years old. How long you gonna wait for it to become the "norm"?

              Come to think of it, when did we humans ever play fair in love and/or war?

              Seems the only justified reason to continue embracing that "bad" ideology after hundreds of years, is because humans are simply too stupid to avoid it.

          • the EC is supposed to act as a buffer against populist movements. So was the Senate. The framers were all wealthy land owners. They were worried the city folks were going to vote themselves some of their largess. To prevent that multiple back stops on Democracy were put in place to give Rural communities a disproportionate amount of power.

            Nowadays this is mostly done with voter suppression and Gerrymandering, but for the single national election we have that doesn't work. Hence the EC.
        • There is no other way to describe a US election now other than Political Civil War, and honestly that stupid shit needs to stop no matter where you stand in politics.

          You're absolutely right, however it's not going to get any better without some sort of reckoning. I agree it should stop, but I'm not for stopping it unless it's mutual disarmament.

      • by Arkham ( 10779 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:58AM (#59366020)

        How about you don't get to police what others talk about?

        Except the last election was influenced by foreign powers who leveraged the facts that (a) facebook conversations are not policed and (b) people are easily swayed by foreign countries pretending to be Americans with incendiary opinions.

      • My understanding is they're already 'policed', and there are standards and requirements for TV ads, but they don't apply to Facebook ads (etc..) How about just applying the same standards across platforms?

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      I like the idea but pols will simply game the system. I can see ads along the lines of "Pol X will never support ".

      All it takes is for a Pol's opponent to come out with some sort of plan for something and ad's like this will grow like weeds.

  • Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A. B3ttik ( 1344591 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:36AM (#59365900)
    Politicians can lie in speeches, interviews, newspaper ads, commercials.. why not online ads?

    I'm against lying, but at a certain point you have to realize that a platform providing speech is not the same thing as condoning that same speech. If CNN interviews a criminal, they are not condoning that criminal's opinion.

    Or should we assume that Twitter Inc agrees with every tweet ever made?
    • by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:44AM (#59365944)

      If CNN interviews a criminal, they are not condoning that criminal's opinion.

      I don't think they have interviewed trump yet, have they?

      Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?

      There are regulations that restrict lying in advertisements for laundry detergent. Why shouldn't there be in politics. I'm not talking about the broken system we have now, i'm talking about the way it should be. Just fucking tell the truth, and if you can't then FUCK OFF. The fact that we have grown so comfortable with our leaders lying to our face is disturbing, the fact that people are arguing for them to be able to lie to us more often in more places is terrifying.

      • It’s pretty simple to determine if a detergent does what it claims. Medicinal claims are horrendously expensive, but testable. You can’t even begin to test most political claims. Is Bernie Sanders’s proposal for free college for everyone a good idea like he claims? It’s practically so nebulous as to be untestable, but even trying to do it is impossible. So how can you tell if calling it good or bad is a lie?

        And this completely ignores any problems of the people charged with findin
        • It’s pretty simple to determine if a detergent does what it claims.

          Hence laundry balls.

          And homeopathy.

          And...

        • by atrex ( 4811433 )
          Just to comment on the "free college" sidebar.

          *Free public college for all. It isn't about tax dollars subsidizing the overpriced ultra elite private colleges like Harvard and Yale. It is simply an expansion of the public education system to grades 13 through 16 in acknowledgement that we need more highly educated, capable, and trained individuals in a variety of fields (though most especially STEM fields) as automation eats through large swathes of the unskilled labor jobs.

          As for fact checking politi
          • we need more highly educated, capable, and trained individuals in a variety of fields (though most especially STEM fields) as automation eats through large swathes of the unskilled labor jobs.

            If college were a magical box where you could have people enter one end and emerge four years later as highly educated, capable, and trained individuals you might have a point. Look at the statistics for four year graduate rates and the large number of students who've found that their degrees are of no value or help in advancing them forward and have only left them saddled with massive debt and let me know if you think more college is the answer.

            The "free" educational system that everyone gets for the fi

          • Yeah, that's all we need. Any moron able to waste $50k of government money to go to college and fail. How about free college for the top 25% of students (academics + standardized tests), everyone else can pay for it. And the idea of paying off all existing student debt is obscene and a deal-breaker. I loathe trump, don't make me cast a vote for that dipshit.
        • Is Bernie Sanders’s proposal for free college for everyone a good idea like he claims? .

          I don't care if he thinks it a good idea or not. I care if I think it's a good idea. Do I think he is lying about wanting to make free college available? I don't. I believe he does want that. Is it feasible? That's a separate discussion.

          Our first amendment doesn't allow us to say "Fuck" on national network television, somehow we have managed to muddle through.

          And the arguments about whats true and whats not bullshit. I refuse to be pulled into a world where facts don't exist. Many things are very easy to

          • Facts are all around us, and they have no alternatives, despite what some people might want you to believe.

            But omitting certain facts allows one to speak truth while leading people to draw false or unproven conclusions.

            The matter at hand with regards to FaceBook and allowing "lies" is a Trump ad that tells no actual lies. The ad asserts three things: that Hunter Biden served on the board for a Ukrainian energy company, that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating this company, and that Democrats want to impeach Trump for wanting Ukraine to investigate this. All three of those cla

          • Our first amendment doesn't allow us to say "Fuck" on national network television, somehow we have managed to muddle through.

            Really? I seem to remember Richard Pryor dropping that word during SNL back in the 70s and nobody went to jail. In fact, it's happened many time since then. There was a mini series called Scared Straight back in 78 that aired on network television and it constantly featured that word. Not so much as a fine.

            And the arguments about whats true and whats not bullshit. I refuse to be pulled into a world where facts don't exist.

            Then get yours straight. People that have a huge hardon for censoring others' speech almost always have their facts wrong.

      • Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Interesting)

        by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @10:17AM (#59366158) Journal

        Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ?

        Because I do not trust our Benevolent Overlords to correctly identify "lies" nor to evenly enforce the "no lies" rule. The correct answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Because I do not trust our Benevolent Overlords to correctly identify "lies" nor to evenly enforce the "no lies" rule.

          Nether do I, that's why I'd have the courts do it.

          • I could agree with that. Back in the 2016 election Trump talked about wanting to "open up the libel laws" because it's too hard in the US to sue people for libel and slander. This was spun by the media as an attack on the media.

            • Back in the 2016 election Trump talked about wanting to "open up the libel laws" because it's too hard in the US to sue people for libel and slander.

              Is it? The only thing making it particularly difficult is that in this country, the truth is an absolute defense against both of those things (unlike, say, in the UK, or indeed the EU.) Trump doesn't want the facts inspected in the statements he claims are libelous or slanderous... because they're true.

              • The issue is that in order to sue people for libel or slander you have to prove that not only did they know what they said was false, but that they also had malicious intent to cause harm.

                You childish swipes at Trump are sad, drinkypoo.

        • It's also why we have a system of check and balances.

          That said at the moment checks and balances have broken down because 1/2 of the Senate refuses to do their job in the face of overwhelming evidence and public admissions of guilt.
          • I think you meant to say "half the house is completely deranged attempting to impeach the president for something he did not do and which would not be illegal if he did."

      • Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?

        Some of it is people who want to lie, yes. But part of it is people who see that banning lying means there has to be someone who decrees, "This is a lie, and will banned." This person or persons gets the right to determine what can be said and what can't be said. This is a Bad Thing.

      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?

        Why are you hellbent on designating a ruling overlord who will decide who can speak and what they can say? If people can lie, your overlord can lie. Now if someone lies, someone else can say "that's a lie". When your overlord lies, no one will be allowed to say anything except "yes, your majesty".

        This is widely understood by almost everyone. You can understand it too. Why don't you?

        • Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?

          Why are you hellbent on designating a ruling overlord who will decide who can speak and what they can say? If people can lie, your overlord can lie. Now if someone lies, someone else can say "that's a lie". When your overlord lies, no one will be allowed to say anything except "yes, your majesty".

          This is widely understood by almost everyone. You can understand it too. Why don't you?

          It being acceptable or unacceptable for politicians to knowingly lie to the general public is not intrinsically tied to the existence of an "overlord" arbitrator. That's the flaw in your argument.

          Who thinks our leaders should knowingly lie to our faces?

          I am not advocating for any specific remedy at this stage, merely attempting to gain some consensus.

          • It being acceptable or unacceptable for politicians to knowingly lie to the general public is not intrinsically tied to the existence of an "overlord" arbitrator. That's the flaw in your argument.

            Unless you want to counter the "lies" with more speech, enforcement of censorship of "lies" is necessarily explicitly tied to some arbitrator who makes the determination of what constitutes a lie. That is unavoidable. The GP was making the case that vesting someone with the power to enforce a particular policy against what may be subjectively determined to be lying (or bias) is problematic for obvious reasons.

      • I'm really remiss to say this, but perhaps I'll celebrate it as my first "get off my lawn" moment: Your statement sums up what is wrong with people today and how the millennial generation is taking us straight down the road to hell (paved with good intentions of course).

        There is an easy way to solve the problem you are talking about. When I grew (90's kid, not that long ago), all the adults had a standard joke: How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving! Summed up in this now lame
  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @09:45AM (#59365948) Journal

    Never forget these companies are censoring because politicians are leaning on them about an opponent's political speech.

    This is an abomination in America.

    It's called "regulation by raised eyebrow", when a politician wonders loudly about something, then sics regulatory examiners on a company "for other reasons". "Hey, see if they are too big and need to be broken up."

    It's bad enough when they are looking for donations, or hurting someone who supports the opposition. But to attack for not actively hurting the speech of an opponent?

    Jfc

    • by atrex ( 4811433 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @10:43AM (#59366282)
      Existing US law explicitly allows a "station" (it was originally written to apply to TV stations, but it can be interpreted to apply to platforms like Twitter and Facebook as well) to refuse to accept any and all political advertisements. It's an all or nothing deal. If they accept paid advertisements from one politician then they must accept paid advertisements from all politicians. But, they have the legal right and option to refuse to accept paid advertisements from any politicians.

      *Note: refusing to run paid advertisements does NOT mean that they are refusing to allow political speech on their platform.
  • "Politicians have lots of money and we want it, so the hell with everything else."

  • Come on people, you need to realize that the information you get from Facebook has the same factual validity as the stuff you read inside a fortune cookie. "Facebook News" is a complete oxymoron and always will be. This is not a journalistic organization. I was fine with Facebook when they were honest about just being a social media platform. What makes me angry now is that they're suddenly trying to claim all the integrity of a respectable news organization, without actually doing any of the annoying work
    • by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

      So some other activist is running for governor on paper just so they can put a bunch of crap up on Facebook.

      Nope. Same group that tried that with the PAC also tried that. (The PAC is literally called "TROLL PAC" which should be enough of a hint that nothing they do is in good faith.)

      Facebook's rules include a cause that forbids ads from people who are only running for office to be able to submit ads to Facebook. You can only run ads if you are running a real campaign for office, you can't just claim to be doing so.

      And there should be no fact checking on political ads. Fact checking is inherently political. Logica

  • "Ads can be an important part of our income - especially for candidates and advocacy groups might not otherwise give us their money."

  • The Amendments BAN GOVERNMENT with the sole purpose of stopping the infringement upon your rights. It does not give any rights; you inherently have those already.

    This also means Facebook, you , I or any corporation does not have to respect any of the rights of others. Again, government is limited by the Amendments. They are allowed to institute slavery for example (prison... see Amendment 13) and judges get to handle the balancing act involved in policing how we abuse one another.

    I would argue since corpo

  • For several weeks, Zuckerberg has engaged in an unusually public charm offensive

    I was unaware that his utterances in public were intended to be charming. How can we tell?

    • BTW, why not just regulate social media the same way we already do with the rest of the media? Media companies are held responsible for carefully vetting any ads they broadcast or print to make sure they aren't false, misleading, or offensive. Zuckerberg has already admitted in court that FB is a media company.
  • The data clearly shows, Brexit was swung in the last few days by a massive Facebook ad blitz orchestrated by Cambridge Analytica and microtargetting hundreds of ad variations based on people's hot buttons. Many of these merely repeated lies but it didn't matter.

    We're now 3 and a half years on, a divided country in disarray. Various court cases found the parties involved guilty, fines levied and yet Brexit rumbles on because all 3 parties made a poltical declaration they would honour an advisory referendu
  • ... we could trash the platform but Zuckerberg would be much wealthier.

  • ... get an adblocker. Let the candidates know about it.

  • by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Thursday October 31, 2019 @11:00AM (#59366356)
    I don't think either side here is motivated by pursuit of the truth, honestly.

    I think the best solution for this is to just affix political ads with a fact-finding link where the community can look into and discuss whether it's true. FB comments are horrible for this, so maybe just a straight-up forum page or even something like a wiki page.
  • Public debate about banning on political ads on Twitter vs. not on Facebook has gone fully off the rails. Both Dorsey and Zuckerberg are wrong about it, but--counter intuitively--Zuckerberg has it less wrong than Dorsey.

    Where Zuckerberg's instincts are kinda right is I think he recognizes on some level that when one company has control over like 90% of a media market and can make decisions about what speech is or isn't allowed, we might want to consider applying 1st amendment protections.

    Yes, there is a "bU

    • There are no monopolies in online media. You are free to espouse your opinion or buy ads on countless platforms. You are conflating reach, which is orthogonal to the business offered. You are essentially making the "McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac, and Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone, oh noes!!!" argument.

      Also, the "i WiLl miX uPPeR and lower case to make it clear I am mocking my hysterical opponent" (I got bored halfway through) meme is one of the top 3 annoying things twitter people do. The m

      • Oh yes there are.

        Imagine if on Gmail you couldn't email anybody outside of Gmail.

        That's how Facebook and Twitter are today, it's a monopoly.

  • Can those calling for government control of speech in the US please consider this one thing:

    If voted into law by Congress today, your President, one Donald J. Trump, would be responsible for implementing procedures and enforcing the rules.

    Please. Think about that VERY carefully.

    • His iron fist would be the hardest iron. Really folks, hard iron. I'm told it would have the 5 best fingers closed into a rock-hard fist of iron and that people would love to be under it. Really great fist!
  • Both Facebook and Twitter are just glorified multiuser blogs. WTH?

    They only have the power that you give them in your mind.

    I am mostly unconcerned about the quality (if there be such a thing) of graffiti.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...