The galling part of Facebook's position is in the second tweet:
A Facebook spokesperson telling CNN: “This person has made clear he registered as a candidate to get around our policies, so his content, including ads, will continue to be eligible for third-party fact-checking.
No, you feckless ass-hats...he's not getting around your policies, he's working within your asinine policies that you arbitrarily set! He is literally playing by your own rules!
So he would have been fine if he had just lied?
Nah. There'd be some other arbitrary reason.
Facebook just wants to decide who is and is not a "valid" political candidate.
IANAL, but that seems like that would qualify as sufficiently editorial that they share liability for anything left up.
Nope - see Batzel, the case that pretty much established Section 230 as blanket indemnity. The matter there involved an individual operating a listserv and exerting complete editorial control, and the court still ruled that he was indemnified by Section 230.
Considering Zuckerberg‘s whole “allowing politicians to lie” thing is because he’s scared shitless of a Democrat regulating or breaking up Facebook up and he’s a sniveling little coward hiding behind Trump, I’d say it’s pretty good odds he’ll make up something to make sure this guy’s ads are taken down.
It’s not really about fairness or freedom of speech, that’s just the excuse they use to sell not moderating hateful content. It’s about their bottom line.
I think that while the above is true, this has been going on far longer then Warren talking about breaking up Big Silicon Valley and is even more so about these people reacting the same way the media has to the right working the refs. Facebook is terrified of Republicans going after them if they try to filter out all the right-wing lies their people spew on their platform. That's why Zuckerberg is out there meeting with Trump. He's reassuring him that, no, Facebook is not the enemy, please don't hit me.
Republicans want to be able to lie on Facebook. Democrats want to break up Facebook. You can see why Facebook likes Republicans and is willing to help them lie in order to win.
My hope if this ends up in court, FB gets denied Section 230 protection because they are buying these ads, trying to usurp state powers by deciding who is a legitimate candidate and have made it clear they are willing to knowingly host ads that are clearly false with the intend to cause damage. IIRC most of the cases I've seen, have been more about providers not removing false content in a "timely manner."
Anyways, haven't really used FB in awhile, but guess I should see if I have an alternative that isn't twitter because I want nothing to do with the garbage platform and would love it if I could direct people to something that isn't intentionally being a threat to democracy.
We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…
How do they determine what is political?
Is an antilittering ad political? Glimate change advocacy? Climate change advocacy that says a politician is trying to make it harder to solve?
I'm curious to see how they will define what is and isn't political. I'm curious if this might be more directed at campaign ads, which is probably the easier way to go about tackling this. Honestly, if that's where this goes, that would be welcome. It would also bode ill for the likes of FB, if twitter is looking at things and being like we want none of that. Granted, this is a silicon valley type company, so it's possible the move is very much in the vein of the idiotic view that "we can have a politically free environment, while completely failing to understand that just about everything is political and politically free, is but an illusion where everyone just happens to agree on something."
I mean to use my favorite example, if you office has an argument over pizza topping for the company lunch, that's a political disagreement on what the company will spend money on for lunch. It also wouldn't be non-political because everyone agreed to order nothing but cheese pizzas for the function, while there was zero argument. it just be a matter of everyone already being on the same page.
We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…
How do they determine what is political?
Is an antilittering ad political? Glimate change advocacy? Climate change advocacy that says a politician is trying to make it harder to solve?
There's a nine hundred and fifty-three percent chance any advertising about climate change - even if it isn't explicitly partisan - will be hit by this policy.
We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…
How do they determine what is political?
Is an antilittering ad political? Glimate change advocacy? Climate change advocacy that says a politician is trying to make it harder to solve?
There's a bunch of regulation around political ads like the paid for by statement that is required. I assume these regulation define the meaning as well.
We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…
How do they determine what is political?
Is an antilittering ad political? Glimate change advocacy? Climate change advocacy that says a politician is trying to make it harder to solve?
There's a bunch of regulation around political ads like the paid for by statement that is required. I assume these regulation define the meaning as well.
That would make sense, so I bet it's no where in Twitter's formal policy
We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…
How do they determine what is political?
Is an antilittering ad political? Glimate change advocacy? Climate change advocacy that says a politician is trying to make it harder to solve?
Gotta say, I'm pretty happy to see Jack Dorsey saying money isn't speech, and twice as shocked:
A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.
Dorsey said Twitter will also stop running issue ads, which Twitter characterizes as ads that "advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance."
In his speech in Washington, Zuckerberg cited issue ads as another reason not to ban poltipoliticalical ads, "Even if we wanted to ban political ads, it's not clear where we'd draw the line. There are many more ads about issues than there are directly about elections. Would we ban all ads about healthcare or immigration or women's empowerment?"
Dorsey said the company would share more details about the policy on November 15th and would stop accepting political ads on November 22nd.
So they went for the worst solution
So attacks on legislative issues of local importance are fine.
Dorsey said Twitter will also stop running issue ads, which Twitter characterizes as ads that "advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance."
In his speech in Washington, Zuckerberg cited issue ads as another reason not to ban poltipoliticalical ads, "Even if we wanted to ban political ads, it's not clear where we'd draw the line. There are many more ads about issues than there are directly about elections. Would we ban all ads about healthcare or immigration or women's empowerment?"
Dorsey said the company would share more details about the policy on November 15th and would stop accepting political ads on November 22nd.
So they went for the worst solution
So attacks on legislative issues of local importance are fine.
Things that do not shock me about this: Dorsey didn't put much thought into how to implement his simple new idea of getting money out of politics.
hi - here's our current definition:
1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or
2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)
I am 99% certain Shell will still be able to purchase ads while being assured no one can purchase ads pointing out how Shell is contributing to the deaths of many people
Yeah, this is going to have holes you can hurl planets through.
I mainly suspect we're going to see a lot more botswarms pushing embedded Youtube videos in the next few months. Assuming, of course, that Twitter doesn't just let some ads through anyway with a big enough payout, because I'm pretty sure their shareholders aren't going to tolerate the company leaving money on the table.
I see it looks like they are going to go the stupid route then. A shame because I wouldn't mind seeing more organizations refusing to run campaign ads for elections.
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
I don't. I have never had a positive encounter in a place that tries to define what is political. I am always somehow on the wrong side of that line. It is confusing to me that "treat me like a person" is seen as being political until I meet the people who set up said spaces.
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
+1
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
hi - here's our current definition:
1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or
2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)
I am 99% certain Shell will still be able to purchase ads while being assured no one can purchase ads pointing out how Shell is contributing to the deaths of many people
Great, so all Twitter has to do is define:
* What "refer" extends to. Does it include names? Pictures of the candidate? Slogans? Policies or Issues that are clearly identified as being associated with said candidate?
* What "advocate" extends to. Similar to refer.
* What's a "legislative issue"? A proposed law? An issue debated in a legislature? An issue mentioned within a legislature? What about an issue mentioned by a currently serving legislator, but outside the legislature (ie- can a politician go on TV and specifically talk about an issue for the sole purpose of getting ads for it banned on Twitter?)?
* What is considered "national"? All of the provided examples can be applied to regional or local issues as well. What transforms a regional issue into a national one (ie- Can I run an ad advocating for the prevention of the California wildfires? See, I haven't talked about the effects of climate change nationally, just regionally.)?
* What happens to ads that reference issues that change character over time? Namely, something starts at a local level and then goes viral and becomes a national concern. Do those ads that were allowed previously, now suddenly become banned?
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
I don't. I have never had a positive encounter in a place that tries to define what is political. I am always somehow on the wrong side of that line. It is confusing to me that "treat me like a person" is seen as being political until I meet the people who set up said spaces.
For Twitter and most techbro companies "Anything that isn't the status quo" is considered "political".
Twitter is grabbing some quick PR with this move, particularly to dunk on Facebook under the current circumstances. But in the end, they aren't saying "Let's keep politics out of the ads!" so much as they're saying "Fact checking the ads we allow is hard, and we are terrified of having human beings do anything on our platform!"
Even in light of this change, Twitter will be no less damaging than it was before. The vast majority of disinformation and hate comes from non-ad sources on their platform.
I ain't about to call them brave when they continue to give a fascist a bullhorn and look the other way.
TetraNitroCubane on
+19
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Just to be clear, I was being facetious. I am fairly certain it will be a shitshow.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
The fuck?
Never have I been so glad that I used my trash email for facebook.
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
The fuck?
Never have I been so glad that I used my trash email for facebook.
You're glad now, but how will you feel when Facebook tries to auto-dox you and winds up giving the Spammity-Spams false hope that little Sam 'Spam' is still out there somewhere?
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
What the fuck
Facebook's "real name" policy has been a dumpster fire since the beginning of Facebook.
"Political" is of course synonymous with "controversial." Even if it's only controversial to the alt right. It's probably impossible to expect Jack to have the moral compass to allow positive messages and disallow negative ones. But I'll still take it over the alternative I guess.
I wonder where the line will be drawn on LGBT rights.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
What the fuck
Yeah guess what if Facebook finds out you didn't register with your deadname.
Posts
Couldn't they bury him in legal fees?
The guy runs his own marketing firm so I assume he has the resources to fight.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Facebook: We cannot determine what claims in political ads are or are not real
Facebook: We can determine what politicians are and are not real
Nope - see Batzel, the case that pretty much established Section 230 as blanket indemnity. The matter there involved an individual operating a listserv and exerting complete editorial control, and the court still ruled that he was indemnified by Section 230.
I think that while the above is true, this has been going on far longer then Warren talking about breaking up Big Silicon Valley and is even more so about these people reacting the same way the media has to the right working the refs. Facebook is terrified of Republicans going after them if they try to filter out all the right-wing lies their people spew on their platform. That's why Zuckerberg is out there meeting with Trump. He's reassuring him that, no, Facebook is not the enemy, please don't hit me.
Anyways, haven't really used FB in awhile, but guess I should see if I have an alternative that isn't twitter because I want nothing to do with the garbage platform and would love it if I could direct people to something that isn't intentionally being a threat to democracy.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Is an antilittering ad political? Glimate change advocacy? Climate change advocacy that says a politician is trying to make it harder to solve?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Don't worry! He'll still be allowed to lie and spew incitements to violence all he wants!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I mean to use my favorite example, if you office has an argument over pizza topping for the company lunch, that's a political disagreement on what the company will spend money on for lunch. It also wouldn't be non-political because everyone agreed to order nothing but cheese pizzas for the function, while there was zero argument. it just be a matter of everyone already being on the same page.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
There's a nine hundred and fifty-three percent chance any advertising about climate change - even if it isn't explicitly partisan - will be hit by this policy.
There's a bunch of regulation around political ads like the paid for by statement that is required. I assume these regulation define the meaning as well.
That would make sense, so I bet it's no where in Twitter's formal policy
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Gotta say, I'm pretty happy to see Jack Dorsey saying money isn't speech, and twice as shocked:
Yeah, I mean, it's probably just a PR move and inadequate to the task, but I'll take it.
So they went for the worst solution
So attacks on legislative issues of local importance are fine.
Things that do not shock me about this: Dorsey didn't put much thought into how to implement his simple new idea of getting money out of politics.
I mainly suspect we're going to see a lot more botswarms pushing embedded Youtube videos in the next few months. Assuming, of course, that Twitter doesn't just let some ads through anyway with a big enough payout, because I'm pretty sure their shareholders aren't going to tolerate the company leaving money on the table.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I don't. I have never had a positive encounter in a place that tries to define what is political. I am always somehow on the wrong side of that line. It is confusing to me that "treat me like a person" is seen as being political until I meet the people who set up said spaces.
Earlier in the year my facebook was not my real name but I used a really silly name Daphane Goodbody. Someone had flagged my account so facebook asked for IDs to prove it was me
I refused saying I don't have to tell you my real name or show them id for it This went back and forth for a few days. Somehow they just took my name from the email account and changed my account to that
Great, so all Twitter has to do is define:
* What "refer" extends to. Does it include names? Pictures of the candidate? Slogans? Policies or Issues that are clearly identified as being associated with said candidate?
* What "advocate" extends to. Similar to refer.
* What's a "legislative issue"? A proposed law? An issue debated in a legislature? An issue mentioned within a legislature? What about an issue mentioned by a currently serving legislator, but outside the legislature (ie- can a politician go on TV and specifically talk about an issue for the sole purpose of getting ads for it banned on Twitter?)?
* What is considered "national"? All of the provided examples can be applied to regional or local issues as well. What transforms a regional issue into a national one (ie- Can I run an ad advocating for the prevention of the California wildfires? See, I haven't talked about the effects of climate change nationally, just regionally.)?
* What happens to ads that reference issues that change character over time? Namely, something starts at a local level and then goes viral and becomes a national concern. Do those ads that were allowed previously, now suddenly become banned?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
For Twitter and most techbro companies "Anything that isn't the status quo" is considered "political".
Twitter is grabbing some quick PR with this move, particularly to dunk on Facebook under the current circumstances. But in the end, they aren't saying "Let's keep politics out of the ads!" so much as they're saying "Fact checking the ads we allow is hard, and we are terrified of having human beings do anything on our platform!"
Even in light of this change, Twitter will be no less damaging than it was before. The vast majority of disinformation and hate comes from non-ad sources on their platform.
I ain't about to call them brave when they continue to give a fascist a bullhorn and look the other way.
What the fuck
The fuck?
Never have I been so glad that I used my trash email for facebook.
Haven't they been through enough?
Facebook's "real name" policy has been a dumpster fire since the beginning of Facebook.
Yeah guess what if Facebook finds out you didn't register with your deadname.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I should do a reset to like...a bunch of my social media.