“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."
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..
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 36.1 ms ] threadaka
"You're not allowed to lie, unless you're a politician who's paid for the right to do so."
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..
Says the person who owes her teaching career to lying about her ethnicity, and is currently lying about being let go for getting pregnant.
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.
The median IQ is 100.
Where do you even come up with this?