How do you feel about Zuckerberg’s response that he won’t censor political ads that have lies?

Well, I loved Warren’s response, which was to take out an ad on Facebook full of lies about Zuckerberg.

That aside, I have lost respect for him over that.

I just read that Facebook (the Dutch article suggests that it is both true for Instagram as well as for Facebook) and Instagram are going to fact check posts (no mention of ads in this one) and label them.

”
Instagram
✔
@instagram
· Oct 21, 2019
Today, we’re announcing new features to reduce misinformation on Instagram.

Instagram
✔
@instagram
Over the next month, content that has been rated “false” or “partly false” by an independent fact-checker will be more prominently labeled so you can better understand if information you’re seeing is reliable.”

All politicians lie. It’s what they do. Seems disingenuous that they would act like they don’t approve of somebody else doing it.

Not sure if Zuckerberg’s doing it for the sake of protecting free speech or he calculated that it’s bad for business. I’m thinking maybe put a disclaimer on those ads….stating FB didn’t check its veracity.

Seems FB also alloted 10 million bucks for educating its members about “fake ads.” Not so sure if that would be of any real help.

I dont think its his teams responsibility to fact check political ads, no. Its our job as voters to educate ourselves.

Who determines what is a lie?

That’s true too. But there are those who believe everything they read and that is not only stupid, but it an be dangerous.

A lie is something that isn’t true @elbanditoroso. For example, “Obama was born in Kenya.”

Who is going to decide what constitutes a lie or not?
Facebook?
What happens if, for example, China or the Koch Brothers decide to “invest” in the company? You know Winnie the Pooh already used their leverage against the NBA and Blizzard to silence critics.

You guys act like there is going to be some one person randomly calling this a lie and calling that the truth. I would imagine they’d rely on a fact checking site like Snopes.

I think the entire line of concern is a sham. It sounded to me like the answer the Dems were looking for is that Facebook would take actions to ensure truth in advertising, except they really didn’t want to let Facebook decide who would decide what was true. Social media is a platform that bypasses the liberal media and reaches millions of people. Trump used it very effectively to run a successful presidential campaign. The Dems already have a biased media in their pocket, they don’t want anyone else putting out any other story other than the one they want put out.
If it was just truth they wanted, why aren’t they looking at truth in the media as well? Why aren’t they attacking every news channel out there to ensure there are no lies in the advertising they put on their channel? After all, all of the political ads could be considered false, every male enhancement pill ad would be false, every ambulance chaser ad would be suspect, every ad for weight loss programs could be called false….everything we see in ads is slanted, misleading and/or wrong. So it isn’t just truth. It is about neutering social media to control the narrative people get. I think Zuckerberg was correct in saying they weren’t going to censor the ads on Facebook.

From what I have seen, they censor anything they don’t agree with.

I think Zuckerberg is a spineless shitbag who’s just looking at his revenue flow.

Does anyone actually look at ads on Facebook?

Only people who are both stupid enough to use facebook, and who are stupid enough to not have an adblocker installed.

@lucillelucillelucille can you give us an example?

I don’t have ad blocker. I just ignore the ads.

@Dutchess_III -A friend had his well thought out political views, posted on his own page,deleted.

Well, without reading it myself there is no way to come to the conclusion that it was deleted for no reason. I see tons and tons of political stuff. Most of it is liberal because most of my friends are liberal, but occasionally, in side threads, I’ll see pro-trump shit from morons.

We have a Dem Raymond Lampert, who’s ad I see constantly. Its on my wall when scrolling. Trumps ads are constant.

@Darth_Algar you and I agree there. He is a douche nozzle in my book. I don’t do Facebook or Twitter or any of the social media. Fluther is about as close as I get.

It’s clearly a freedom of speech issue, and it boils down those other 2 freedoms nobody talks about—the freedom of ignorance which breeds the corollary freedom of stupidity. It is the alarming persistence of the former which ALWAYS generates the overwhelming surplus of the latter, with such consequences as those of minimal literacy declaring the bias of those responsible for the dissemination of LEGITIMATE information.

Here’s the problem with anyone deciding what is a lie and what isn’t.

About 80% of what @seawulf575 writes is open to interpretation. It isn’t demonstrably false, and it isn’t demonstrably true either. It is his interpretation of facts based on his point of view.

I might disagree (and often do) but that doesn’t make him a liar. (it might make him wrong, but that’s a different issue)

The issue with Facebook censorship is that enormous grey area.

@Dutchess_III -I see.
I would not have described it as inflammatory whether or not one agreed or disagreed with it.
There was no name calling or any vitriolic language that might be geared towards getting a reaction.
He is an intelligent person.

I got put in FB jail for posting a picture of the Album cover for Houses of the Holy. It went against their “lewd and lascivious rules,” I guess.

Thing is, I’m am as sure as I can be that no human sees each and every post. They have a logarithm (I think that’s the right word) that’s programmed to react to what ever it’s programmed to react to, key words, certain pictures.

@Dutchess_III – I will ask him about it the next time I see him.

Ask him what? The reason the bot gave for taking it down?

@Dutchess_III Take it easy.

What? I was just curious what you were going to ask him about.

@elbanditoroso Exactly. Except for the part about me being wrong ;-)

I neither like nor trust Mark. I’m just waiting on him to run for office

Ads are how he makes money. I don’t look at ads so it doesn’t matter. I don’t like censoring. As for political ads, I just assume they all contain an element of untruth. I don’t depend on ads at all when it comes to choosing a candidate in an election. I also do not watch television shows. So I don’t see ads with any regularity.

I have a friend who is very vocal about his support for Palestinians and he was recently put in FB jail for a month.

Facebook also removes many atheists who are vocal.

Zuckfuck removes what he doesn’t like.

I am more concerned with why nobody tells him how ugly his hair is.
It looks like he has it cut by a lunatic armed with a weed whacker.

@patty He only has so much to work with.

@Stache, again, they must have tripped some key word for the bot to snag them. I have plenty of outspoken Atheists on my feed.
All you can take heart in is that the decisions are not made emotionally. They aren’t made my a person who hates Atheists.

TV stations don’t censor political ads with lies. Why should social media have an extra burden?