
Facebook employees speak out on political ads - otterley
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-letter.html
======
otterley
There's simply no reason why Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media
company needs to be involved in the business of political campaigns. They're
completely free to decline such business and refuse to run political
advertisements. It's not like they'd lose much: the income they earn from
political ads is a drop in the bucket, proportionally speaking.

Given the intense amount of scrutiny they're under, and their apparent
inability to make clear, consistent, and sensible rules regarding their
content, perhaps it would be better for them to just get out of the business
altogether.

~~~
bluGill
Are they? In the US radio and TV cannot refuse such ads. I'm not sure how/if
this regulation applies to Facebook (radio/tv get there because as a limited
space part of their license says that have to support them), but Facebook is
too big to try to thumb its nose at politicians like that. There are many ways
politics can make life hard for Facebook while staying in the letter of the
constitution.

Facebook when it was 100 friends from Harvard could ignore politics. Facebook
with millions of users cannot.

~~~
otterley
> I'm not sure how/if this regulation applies to Facebook

It doesn't.

> Facebook is too big to try to thumb its nose at politicians like that.

I don't really see it as "thumbing its nose." Politicians and their backers
would still be free to post whatever they want. But they wouldn't be able to
use a paid advertisement to force their (potentially false) messages into
people's News Feeds.

------
eej71
It's not clear to me that one could always decide what constitutes a political
ad in the first place. Sure, there is the obvious, vote for candidate X.

But what about issue advocacy ads? Are ads from an industry advocate group
political? Say it was funded by the Koch brothers defending fossil fuels? Or
what about an ad from the Southern Poverty Law Center to fight for
disenfranchised voters? Or what about an anti-vax group looking to mobilize
their base?

I don't see how its that clear cut.

~~~
otterley
Why does it have to be clear cut? Why not bias on the side of denial? Facebook
doesn’t have to be a platform for paid political speech.

~~~
eej71
So if planned parenthood runs an ad inviting people to join their network of
supporters to protest in support of a right to abortion - would that be paid
political speech in your eyes? How about if the Catholic Church runs an ad for
a pro-life YouTube channel?

It's easy to say things like "not be a platform for paid political speech".
I'm sure you have a clear cut line in your head and it makes sense to you. But
to expect a large corporation - or some thoughtful government committee - to
draw that line with any consistency or articulable principle seems incredibly
naive.

~~~
otterley
(Yes to both examples.)

As I've said elsewhere, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The
decision matrix doesn't need to be perfectly consistent or articulable. (As
Justice Stewart once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it.") Biasing
towards denial will help make Facebook a much more peaceful place.

Besides, as I've said elsewhere, this is about paid distribution, not banning
from Facebook. People and organizations should remain free to do and say
whatever they like in their own groups and pages, and members or individuals
should remain free to share these messages if they like. But that's a
different thing from forcing a message into someone's feed.

------
gremlinsinc
Maybe the government needs to A. bring back the fairness doctrine. B. Update
it for ads/propaganda/social media.

Say for instance they created an agency that basically monitors/fact checks
news and advertisements.

Or it could just be political ads. I think the government should enforce
honesty in political ads, I mean allowing lying in political ads seems to say
corruption is allowed. As lying = corruption.

Or no agency and just severe consequences/litigation for
publishing/republishing 'fake news' without some sort of byline saying 'this
is fake news', and dishonest political ads could also be sued against.

I mean as litigious as we are there's a gold mine for the legal industry here.

------
debt
They don't want to exercise editorial control of their ads because "fact
checking" crosses the chasm of media company vs not-a-media company.

They super duper don't want to be called a media company.

They're simply a publisher. ;)

~~~
otterley
As far as I’m aware, no such legal distinction exists. I’m not sure where you
got this idea from.

------
fiftyacorn
I wish there was a way to opt out of political ads on social media

~~~
mythrwy
There is a really good way!

Opt out of social media that shows stuff you don't want to see.

~~~
marktucker
Facebook has major platform lock-in for me, though, since that's where all my
friends are. The proper solution is to vote with your ad-blocker.

~~~
izzydata
How is Facebooks ad pricing structured? Do people pay Facebook on the amount
of users Facebook claims it will reach or by actually views counted by whether
or not it loaded or was clicked?

It seems possible that Facebook could charge people claiming it will reach 10
million users even if every single one of those people ends up blocking it.

------
sk84life
Why Facebook employees are not worried of they customers privacy..? This fake
worry talk is weird to me.

------
gwbas1c
Anyone have a link to the letter that isn't behind a paywall?

