
Elizabeth Warren targets Facebook's ad policy – with a Facebook ad - rm2889
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ad/index.html
======
buboard
Facebook could just ban political advertising for a year. They don't stand to
lose a lot of money, just political influence. It would be a smart move though
that would shut the mouths of their rivals in the press.

~~~
pixl97
I dont think you realize how much money is in political ads.

~~~
buboard
That money will be useless if facebook is destroyed by the next government.

Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads in 2016

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-
spend/](https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/)

and

[https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18015228/facebook-top-
politic...](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18015228/facebook-top-political-ad-
buyers-trump-beto-elections)

------
nullc
If the goal was just to make a point-- why not make some gonzo claim that
virtually no one would believe and which wouldn't obviously benefit their
campaign when anyone does believe it? Something along the lines of "Mark
Zuckerberg pregnant with space alien baby!"

This seems like it's playing into the hands of political opponents who might
accuse the campaign of being dishonest.

~~~
maguirre
I would argue that the ad, as it is, proves her point well. Political ads tend
to make claims/conclusions that tend to be believable or within the realm of
possibility.

~~~
buboard
Nobody believed it though, not even the_Donald. If that was the point it
failed quite spectacularly. Hope her campaign tosses it as a silly idea and
not make any more fuss around it.

~~~
nullc
Facebook's reputation wrt political influence is so bad that a claim like this
would be much more plausible to the opposition.

It's become a standard refrain in political discussion that [media outlet,
platform x] is behaving non-neutrally to help your opponents.

If trump ran a campaign saying that facebook was colluding with warren to
manipulate outcomes many trump supporters would believe it-- perhaps it was
facebook sucking up to prevent being split up-- and many warren supporters
would disbelieve it.

If I heard that Mark Zuckerberg endorsed Trump's reelection from someone I
trusted (rather than from a political ad), I would have absolutely believed
it. ... but then again I don't particularly care for either facebook or trump.

At the end of the day the Warren campaign has effectively admitted that its
willing to run overtly false adds targeting companies that they've previously
taken issue with. They had a justification for doing so, but that
justification may ring pretty hollow for people who are undecided in
supporting the campaign.

Trump supporters often justify many of trumps' more obviously untruthful
statements with excuses like you're not supposed to take his words literally.
Unsurprisingly, many people are not convinced by this position.

------
RickJWagner
I'd think every politician is going to have a Facebook strategy. It probably
aligns with age demographics.

They probably need Twitter, etc. for other demographics.

------
chromeaway
Fight fire with fire

\-- James Hetfield

------
nabla9
I'm surprised that Warren takes this approach. Did she or her campaign really
think this trough?

It seems like Trump successfully turned 'fake news' into mush where people
can't distinguish between different categories of speech. Even Dems get
confused and can't think starting from first principles. They are asking FB to
sensor political speech.

~~~
qnsi
Do you in USA have some kind of protection of politicians being deflamed?

In Poland (but just during elections) you can sue other politicians with fast
line process that takes I think 24 hours

I think she should aim to regulate ads on social media by some kind of
institution, not make FB have more power

~~~
dctoedt
> _Do you in USA have some kind of protection of politicians being deflamed?_
> [sic; defamed]

We do, but our Supreme Court has ruled that, under the First Amendment to our
Constitution, a public official (or candidate for public office) must prove
that the defamatory statement was false AND that it was made with "actual
malice," meaning that the accused libeler / slanderer either (i) knew the
statement was false or (ii) recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.
[0] This is a pretty tough burden of proof for the plaintiff to carry, so most
politicians don't bother suing for libel or slander.

[0]
[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan)

