The ad was prompted by a line of questioning from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who asked Mark Zuckerberg at an October 23rd House hearing if Facebook would let her get away with posting a misleading ad about Graham.
The takedown suggests that Facebook is consistent in its approach to truthful ads. However, it also underscores the controversy over its refusal to block demonstrably false ads from politicians. It may not want to fuel accusations of bias, or wade into the debate over what constitutes a lie. At the same time, critics have argued that this hands-off approach isn't really neutral. It reportedly favors those candidates most willing to lie, since they can cheat without being held to account like they would with TV ads. In this view, Facebook is content to let misinformation spread so long as it comes from certain sources.
RedstoneKingdom on October 28th, 2019 at 02:48 UTC »
The ad that was removed.
intheoryiamworking on October 28th, 2019 at 01:41 UTC »
I strongly disagree with the framing and word choice of the headline (which is Engadget's phrasing).
The stunt wasn't about "fact-checking," the claim in the ad was meant to be outrageously and obviously wrong, no special "fact-checking" process required.
The point was to test Facebook's promise that they'd be non-partisan in the way they enforced their policies on false claims in ads, i.e., they promised they'd allow them all.
Except now it turns out they've discovered / invented / left themselves a loophole that allows them to violate the spirit of their public claims, promises, and announced priorities.
What? How? How does this demonstrate anything about "truthful" ads?
nalninek on October 28th, 2019 at 01:21 UTC »
Call me crazy but I don’t think politicians should be allowed to advertise at all. Their ads are typically innately dishonest at some level or another. I don’t think lying to a mass market for political gain is what the founders had in mind when it comes to freedom of speech.