Current Events > Zuckerberg defends allowing misinformation in campaign ads

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/466318-zuckerberg-defends-allowing-misinformation-in-campaign-ads

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended his companys controversial decision of allowing politicians to post political ads with misleading or false claims on its platform, saying its something we have to live with.

People worry, and I worry deeply, too, about an erosion of truth, Zuckerberg told The Washington Post ahead of a speech at Georgetown University. At the same time, I dont think people want to live in a world where you can only say things that tech companies decide are 100 percent true. And I think that those tensions are something we have to live with.

In general, in a democracy, I think that people should be able to hear for themselves what politicians are saying," Zuckerberg continued. "Often, the people who call the most for us to remove content are often the first to complain when its their content that falls on the wrong side of a policy.

In his 35-minute speech at Georgetown Thursday afternoon, Zuckerberg elaborated on that defense, saying that having tech company's moderate content could be dangerous.

Political ads on Facebook are more transparent than anywhere else, Zuckerberg said. We dont factcheck political ads because we believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying.

I know many people disagree, but in general I dont think its right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy. And we are not an outlier here.

Zuckerberg said that the company had considered banning political ads all together but rejected that approach.

Political ads can be an important part of voice, especially for local candidates and up and coming challengers that the media might not otherwise cover, he explained. Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media chooses to cover.

Zuckerberg and Facebook have received backlash over their policy, which came under scrutiny this month after President Trumps reelection campaign released an advertisement accusing former Vice President Joe Biden without evidence of using his office to pressure Ukrainian officials to drop an investigation into a company where his son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board.

The Democratic National Committee called on Facebook to remove the "false ad." Cable network CNN has refused to run the ad, but Facebook has declined to remove it.

Facebook does have a third-party fact-checking program but for now has exempted posts and ads from political figures from that process. Critics argue that the social media giant is responsible for regulating ads on its platform, which reaches more than 2 billion people globally. But Facebook and free speech advocates say they are wary of giving tech companies authority over vetting political claims.

Democrats are keeping pressure on Facebook.

Bidens 2020 contender, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), has repeatedly hammered Facebook over the policy by running her own campaign ad that falsely claims that Zuckerberg supports Trump for re-election.

Facebook also came under fire earlier this year when it declined to take down a user-posted video of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that was doctored to make it seem like she was slurring her words.

What's your take?
---

Stupid.
---

Scumbag businessman continues to be a scumbag to make more money
---

Fair next. Misinformation is everywhere. Whether it's a blatant lie or misleading clickbait, it's on you to research more before jumping to conclusions.

---

He's not defending it, he's saying it's not up to his company to police it. But clickbait titles from modern journalism is sadly to be expected.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

He's not defending it, he's saying it's not up to his company to police it.

That is his defense of allowing the ads, yes.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Fair next. Misinformation is everywhere. Whether it's a blatant lie or misleading clickbait, it's on you to research more before jumping to conclusions.

But people don't, so someone should have the responsibility to not disseminate misinformation

Also, fuck political ads. They're typically just attacks or weak bullshit that convince no one that is not already siding with you. Useless.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Fair next. Misinformation is everywhere. Whether it's a blatant lie or misleading clickbait, it's on you to research more before jumping to conclusions.

But people don't, so someone should have the responsibility to not disseminate misinformation

Also, fuck political ads. They're typically just attacks or weak bullshit that convince no one that is not already siding with you. Useless.

i say ban all political ads. period.

anything else is on the individual user
---

voldothegr8 posted...

But clickbait titles from modern journalism is sadly to be expected.

Perhaps we should be aiming regulation there...
---

spudger posted...

i say ban all political ads. period.

I say Zuckerberg made a compelling case for why we shouldn't. Political ads help newcomers and people the media choose not to cover. Facebook is also useful for local politicians to reach out to their community.
---

He has a point. Who would be deciding what is misinformation and what is not? You have garden variety leftists claiming everything from PragerU is misinformation even when that is blatantly not the case, so who do you trust to censor ads/posts on Facebook?

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Fair next. Misinformation is everywhere. Whether it's a blatant lie or misleading clickbait, it's on you to research more before jumping to conclusions.

There's a distinct difference between Breitbart posting whatever lies they can come up with and the President of the United States literally making campaign ads with those lies.
---

He's not wrong. We shouldn't expect tech companies to be the sole arbiter of truth, and as Zuck himself said:

"Often, the people who call the most for us to remove content are often the first to complain when its their content that falls on the wrong side of a policy.

---

Bidens 2020 contender, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), has repeatedly hammered Facebook over the policy by running her own campaign ad that falsely claims that Zuckerberg supports Trump for re-election.

lmao
---

AmericaTheBrave posted...

spudger posted...

i say ban all political ads. period.

I say Zuckerberg made a compelling case for why we shouldn't. Political ads help newcomers and people the media choose not to cover. Facebook is also useful for local politicians to reach out to their community.

you have no data to back those claims.

mere speculation
---

I agree with him. Do you really want to live in a world where Facebook decides what's true ?
---

Shotgunnova posted...

Bidens 2020 contender, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), has repeatedly hammered Facebook over the policy by running her own campaign ad that falsely claims that Zuckerberg supports Trump for re-election.

lmao

Should be noted the ad immediately admits that's a lie because Democrats are actually held to standards.
---

konokonohamaru posted...

I agree with him. Do you really want to live in a world where Facebook decides what's true ?

Absolutely not
---

Antifar posted...

Absolutely not

agreed and I think another problem is they can choose what ads we see. Similar to what google did to tulsi gabbard


---

seems reasonable to me. Well, I think they should not run untrue ads but I don't think it's facebook's place to decide what ads are untrue or not

Like, consider advertising for other products. There are rules in terms of what you're allowed to say in your advertising. Some of these ads probably end up on facebook but is it facebook who applies these rules to them to decide what to allow or not? no, it's some other organization
---

All I'm getting from this is that Facebook is a useless piece of shit.

But hey, if that's what Zucky wants to claim, who am I to argue?
---

voldothegr8 posted...

He's not defending it, he's saying it's not up to his company to police it. But clickbait titles from modern journalism is sadly to be expected.

what in your post did you think disproved anything said itt

BLAKUboy posted...

Should be noted the ad immediately admits that's a lie because Democrats are actually held to standards.

Reminds me of gb1990

---

Anyone remember that AI speech from Metal Gear?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.
---

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

In individual cases there's often a big difference, but as a general practice there's a fine line between "censoring blatantly false ads" and "deciding what's true".
---

pls posted...

He has a point. Who would be deciding what is misinformation and what is not? You have garden variety leftists claiming everything from PragerU is misinformation even when that is blatantly not the case, so who do you trust to censor ads/posts on Facebook?

It's pretty easy to separate lies from truths or opinions that people don't like. If someone wants to be racist on the Internet, let them. If they want to lie in advertisements to further their agenda don't. Are we really at the point in America where we're going to scream about the need for centrism when it comes to truth vs lie?

"I support handling healthcare this way" = opinion

"Turd Sandwich wants to kill your children" = a lie without definitive proof

Really we should just ban political attack ads. You want to win? Talk yourself up. Share your policies.
---

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

In individual cases there's often a big difference, but as a general practice there's a fine line between "censoring blatantly false ads" and "deciding what's true".

So... you think Facebook *should* block some ads? Just making sure I'm following your point..

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

In individual cases there's often a big difference, but as a general practice there's a fine line between "censoring blatantly false ads" and "deciding what's true".

They don't need to decide what's true or tell anyone what opinions to have. Just not disseminate what is false.
---

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

In individual cases there's often a big difference, but as a general practice there's a fine line between "censoring blatantly false ads" and "deciding what's true".

So... you think Facebook *should* block some ads? Just making sure I'm following your point..

No, I don't think they should, because even if it's obvious in some ads, there are also many where the line is fine. I just don't think facebook, the provider of the platform, should be the one to make those decisions.
---

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

In individual cases there's often a big difference, but as a general practice there's a fine line between "censoring blatantly false ads" and "deciding what's true".

So... you think Facebook *should* block some ads? Just making sure I'm following your point..

No, I don't think they should, because even if it's obvious in some ads, there are also many where the line is fine. I just don't think facebook, the provider of the platform, should be the one to make those decisions.

So if a politician ran with a campaign about "bringing the truth out about Sandy Hook", their ads advocating that the event was a hoax should be allowed on Facebook?

I permanently deleted my facebook account and Zuckerberg is a POS. He did disable linking to certain news sites Facebook disapproved of (you could not link to Zerohedge articles even in private messages).

That said, he is right about this. The internet needs less censorship, not more. I don't trust corporations and politicians to decide what is fake news or not.

Regardless of how you feel businesses or the government should handle the truth or whatever, the argument that "People will figure out the truth" is just patently untrue. Many people, of all types, will turn and run as far from the truth as possible if they don't like it. They don't want to be convinced. They want their beliefs confirmed. And the current culture of "fake news" and "alternative facts" isn't doing much to help it
---

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

Ruvan22 posted...

konokonohamaru posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I think theres a big difference between Facebook decides whats true and Facebook doesnt publish blatantly false ads.

I don't think there's a big difference, I think there's a fine line.

So a political ad stating Sandy Hook was fabricated?

In individual cases there's often a big difference, but as a general practice there's a fine line between "censoring blatantly false ads" and "deciding what's true".

So... you think Facebook *should* block some ads? Just making sure I'm following your point..

No, I don't think they should, because even if it's obvious in some ads, there are also many where the line is fine. I just don't think facebook, the provider of the platform, should be the one to make those decisions.

Slopes are only as slippery as you let them be. Nothing would ever happen if we always deferred to the worst case scenario. There is middle ground between no rules and "1 corporation should be the sole arbiter of right and wrong and tells us exactly what we need to know"
---

https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1184881096032473089
---

He has a point

The idea of facebook deciding what is truth is very 1984
---

Antifar posted...

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/466318-zuckerberg-defends-allowing-misinformation-in-campaign-ads

"Often, the people who call the most for us to remove content are often the first to complain when its their content that falls on the wrong side of a policy.

That quote is probably the most accurate statement I've ever heard Zuckerberg say.

For a long time, some of us have been warning that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter were getting so huge that their influence was maybe becoming too far-reaching and insidious, and that it might not be a good thing to support them having double standards or pushing agendas through censorship, bans, favoritism and other shady practices. What was the popular rebuttal? A smug lecture on how critics should shut the fuck up because these are private companies, so free speech did not apply anyway (Got em!) and our concerns were misguided.

Well, now people are mad because Orange Man Bad and they don't like the info on Facebook, so they want the government to force a private business to change the way they operate. Congratulations, you played yourself.
---

TiamatNM posted...

I permanently deleted my facebook account and Zuckerberg is a POS. He did disable linking to certain news sites Facebook disapproved of (you could not link to Zerohedge articles even in private messages).

That said, he is right about this. The internet needs less censorship, not more. I don't trust corporations and politicians to decide what is fake news or not.

Yeah, what kills me is that they actually have blacklisted some websites, which doesn't seem to jive with what he's saying here.

E: Also what the hell are you using that site for? Jfc
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Antifar posted...

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/466318-zuckerberg-defends-allowing-misinformation-in-campaign-ads

"Often, the people who call the most for us to remove content are often the first to complain when its their content that falls on the wrong side of a policy.

That quote is probably the most accurate statement I've ever heard Zuckerberg say.

For a long time, some of us have been warning that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter were getting so huge that their influence was maybe becoming too far-reaching and insidious, and that it might not be a good thing to support them having double standards or pushing agendas through censorship, bans, favoritism and other shady practices. What was the popular rebuttal? A smug lecture on how critics should shut the fuck up because these are private companies, so free speech did not apply anyway (Got em!) and our concerns were misguided.

Well, now people are mad because Orange Man Bad and they don't like the info on Facebook, so they want the government to force a private business to change the way they operate. Congratulations, you played yourself.

The thing is, the people who really want companies like Facebook to act like filters have such blind Zealotous conviction in their belief that they hold the right opinions on everything, that the only thing they can foresee from that change is some glorious golden future where everything they want is made real because anyone who disagrees has no way to voice it. They can't even imagine a future where they are the ones on the wrong side of an argument, because if they had even a modicum of foresight they would be just as horrified as everybody else at the idea of Facebook controlling what is truth. Of course, the fact that the tech sector overwhelmingly leans in one direction almost certainly factors into their decision, which is why people are so openly angry at the idea that Zuckerberg was having dinner with conservatives. I think if you were able to convince people that Facebook could turn into a conservative-leaning social media platform, people would go from demanding that they censor there advertising to demanding legislation to prevent them from doing so.
---

good I say were all big boys and can handle lies.

stop being everyones mommy. Just because you knuckleheads are easily persuaded by obvious bullshit doesnt mean we all are

like who sees a fucking political ad and believes it? Who the fuck willingly watches a political ad? Who are these people

Romes187 posted...

like who sees a fucking political ad and believes it? Who the fuck willingly watches a political ad? Who are these people

The same people that Fox News has managed to brainwash over the decades
---

s0nicfan posted...

He's not wrong. We shouldn't expect tech companies to be the sole arbiter of truth, and as Zuck himself said:

"Often, the people who call the most for us to remove content are often the first to complain when its their content that falls on the wrong side of a policy.

Irony or hypocrisy?

Bio1590 posted...

The same people that Fox News has managed to brainwash over the decades

let them be they can do whatever they want

im just glad you arent brainwashed by your own news feed. That would be a real shame. Those idiots that look at those other news feeds...well theyre obviously stupid and need to be coddled