
Warren runs ‘fake’ FB ad attacking Zuckerberg over inaction on misinformation - js2
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elizabeth-warren-facebook-advert-zuckerberg-trump-fake-news-a9153221.html
======
jmole
“It is not our role to intervene when politicians speak. That’s why I want to
be really clear today – we do not submit speech by politicians to our
independent fact-checkers, and we generally allow it on the platform even when
it would otherwise breach our normal content rules.”

aka

"You're not allowed to lie, unless you're a politician who's paid for the
right to do so."

~~~
chillacy
Political advertising has special treatment among TV stations, so there is
some precedent for not fact-checking political advertisement:
[https://www.thebalancecareers.com/should-tv-stations-ban-
fal...](https://www.thebalancecareers.com/should-tv-stations-ban-false-
political-ads-3956480)

~~~
cat199
Ostensibly (not a lawyer) given the sensationalist false headline and the
direct attack on his own business rather than just being 'politics', this
could potentially be cause for a libel suit. That said, since the company is
already in the sights of regulators, possibly not the best move strategically.

The 'best' part about it is that she's guilty of the same claim she's
complaining about:

"facebook helped elect donald trump"

which isn't actually true in any direct sense (and debatably so in an indirect
sense), yet they are allowing her to run her ad..

------
chillacy
> Responding to Ms Warren’s adverts, a Facebook spokesperson told CNN: “If
> Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe
> Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech.”

Well, at least they're principled about it. They'll take your money either
way.

CNN notably did not run the ad:

> CNN requested that the advertiser remove the false graphic that says the
> mainstream media is ‘fake news.’ The mainstream media is not fake news, and
> therefore the ad is false,” the network said at the time. “Per our policy,
> it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted.

Which seems like an an awfully self-interested reason to reject the ad.

~~~
uncoder0
I respect the principal. It's messy when you start censoring public figures.
Let them speak how they want and let the people decide through a 10 second
google if it's fact or fiction.

~~~
codq
The entire game is exploiting those who lack the critical thinking skills to
sufficiently fact check themselves.

The median IQ is 100.

~~~
farah7
An IQ of 100 is now low by any means. I doubt the primary incentive is to seek
out those with lack of critical thinking skills as they are actually a
minority and would turn off the majority.

~~~
newen
> those with lack of critical thinking skills as they are actually a minority

Where do you even come up with this?

------
WomanCanCode
I think the best thing happening in the recent time was when Zuckerberg was
summoned by Congress to testify. It just opened our eyes that political
advertisement and buying influence on social media is not only cheap but being
done actively by groups whose members are not registered to vote in the USA.
I'm told that this is also happening in other countries.

