
Facebook Removes a Gospel Group’s Music Video - Anon1096
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/media/facebook-removes-gospel-video.html
======
em3rgent0rdr
The latest victim in the anti-free speech reactionary campaign to crackdown on
advertising considered political. What's worse, prohibiting ads from Russian
trolls interfering in US elections, or the risk of any promoted political
speech like this being blocked?

~~~
gowld
Interference is worse.

political speech like the OP is only (temporarily) blocked from paid
promotion, not organic virality.

Also, apply a sense of scope and proportionality. The media loves to
sensationalize one bad example in a million examples that are fine.

> "so we’re [Facebook] asking people with content that falls under those rules
> to simply get authorized and show who paid for the ad in order for it to
> run.”

> “Separately,” the statement continued, “we made an error by deleting the
> original post. As soon as we identified what happened, we restored the post
> since it does not violate our Community Standards and have apologized to
> Zion’s Joy.”

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
> "political speech like the OP is only (temporarily) blocked from paid
> promotion..."

In this case the political speech was only temporarily blocked, as the private
company doing the blocking realized it was a bad decision. However if there
was a government-imposed block on such free speech, then the government can
(for all intents and purposes) permanently block it. For example see China's
Great Wall.

> "..., not organic virality"

Well my concern is that an over-zealous campaign against advertising
considered political would either block the video before it went viral, or
lower its prioritization in news feeds such that it wouldn't been seen by much
eyeballs and so it wouldn't catch on to go viral.

