
Facebook says Trump can lie in his Facebook ads - MBCook
https://popular.info/p/facebook-says-trump-can-lie-in-his
======
ikeyany
> The old rules prohibited all ads that contained "false" and "misleading"
> content and made no mention of the fact-checking program. The new rules are
> limited to claims that are "debunked by third-party fact checkers."

> Moreover, Facebook says "political figures" are exempt from even that narrow
> restriction.

Grim.

------
Porthos9K
Facebook is just acknowledging reality. Politicians only tell the truth by
accident.

~~~
Jeff_Brown
(1) Not all politicians.

(2) Accepting money from someone to help them do wrong is not a neutral act.

(3) Shrugging off the bad actions of some actors encourages other bad actors,
and dulls the public outrage that is appropriate.

~~~
Porthos9K
(1) Yes, all politicians. Maybe they're lying by omission. Maybe they're using
euphemisms to soft-pedal the facts. But they're still lying.

(2) With all of the nefarious shit Facebook has done and continues to do, I
can't muster much outrage over yet another piece of evidence that Mark
Zuckerberg is a piece of shit who has no business possessing as much money or
power as he does.

Things aren't going to get better until corporations who engage in this sort
of malfeasance start getting their charters revoked, their assets expropriated
under civil forfeiture laws, and their executives prosecuted under the RICO
statutes.

------
jaytaylor
If you want to jump straight to the content, check out
[http://archive.is/IxWPw](http://archive.is/IxWPw).

~~~
jakeogh
Biden's exact words: "if the prosecutor's not fired, you're not gettin' the
money"

~~~
Jeff_Brown
According to who?

~~~
jakeogh
Biden:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urTk6O4c0mU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urTk6O4c0mU)

[https://i.redd.it/wp66quhos4p31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/wp66quhos4p31.jpg)

~~~
Jeff_Brown
Interesting. Yup, looks like that happened. The question then is whether it
was improper.

I haven't done a huge amount of research but here's what USA Today says:

"Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for
Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine,
an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.

Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period
before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption
bureau.

The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted
special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter
Biden did not join the company until 2014."

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-
really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/)

~~~
jakeogh
Consider that in the context of the first hand account from the person who got
fired.

[https://i.redd.it/wp66quhos4p31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/wp66quhos4p31.jpg)

USA Today, FOX, CNN, *NBC are not sources of information. They are wings of
power centers. It's best to think of them as perception managment platforms.
If you read them, purely looking for things you can actually check, fine. But
realize thay are not even remotely neutral and they lie just as much as the
average political figure.

Real windows are not for public consumption. Skippy's email (32795) for
example.

~~~
Jeff_Brown
Agreed about checking. I'd like to check this claim but don't know how:

"His dismissal had been sought not just by Mr. Biden, but also by others in
the Obama administration, as well other Western governments and international
lenders. Mr. Shokin had been repeatedly accused of turning a blind eye to
corruption in his office and among the Ukrainian political elite, and
criticized for failing to bring corruption cases."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-
ukraine...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-
trump.html)

~~~
jakeogh
NYT great example. Note how they dont source the claim. The reader is not
expected to even wonder if there is a source. It's worded as if the sentence
itself is the source.

A curious reader would need to contact Kenneth Vogel directly. If history is a
guide, the response it something about "backgound sources with information
about the matter". Or start searching archives for Shokin. It's common to use
hit pieces to attack people problems.

Again though, consider that claim in context with the first hand account from
the person that got fired:

[https://i.redd.it/wp66quhos4p31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/wp66quhos4p31.jpg)

Who is Joe Biden's son? Why would that company hire him?

And what is the NTY? IMO thinking of it as a newspaper is like thinking of
Google as a search engine:
[https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg)
[https://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-
and-s...](https://gawker.com/here-are-some-top-n-y-times-editors-and-staff-
joking-a-1713336525)

~~~
Jeff_Brown
I'm not convinced by the prosecutor's testimony. Convincing would be records
of what his office did.

Hunter Biden is a lawyer who had previously been on the board of Amtrak. I'm
sure the political connections helped.

------
Jeff_Brown
Is Facebook such an ad monopoly that no advertiser in their right mind would
boycott them for decisions like this? Have we outraged people no recourse?

~~~
Porthos9K
Maybe if a sufficiently large group of angry sysadmins applied the Internet
Death Penalty to Facebook and refused to allow any traffic to or from their
IPs?

