Why are the only two options to let ads through or reject them? How about, fact check them and visibly mark them as being potentially false and a link to more details. This should make both sides happy: Zuck who believes the public should decide for themselves, and the rest.
They did try something like this and it backfired. People were more likely to click headlines marked as "fake new", not less.
It's pretty easy (and a bit depressing) to see why: imagine seeing a headline that agrees with you politically. The candidate that you support did something good. Or the other side did something bad. It confirms, yet again, what you already know. But now, there is a little label that says that this may be fake. It's very easy to rationalize that the moderator is biased or doesn't know what they are talking or that this is simply what they want you to believe, isn't it? The bubble is real.
Again, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. In fact in this case we’ve already been through this. Instead of “why does Facebook allow possibly false ads” the discourse instantly becomes “why did Facebook allow this possibly false ad to go without a marker / why did Facebook put a marker on this ad that’s true in spirit”. For every action there is an equal and opposite hit piece.
I've seen you repeat these arguments over and over in this thread, without suggesting any solution. I am guessing you are content with the status quo of Facebook.
I agree there is a problem, I simply disagree that there is an easy solution. All "solutions" people suggest either propose to make Facebook nakedly partisan, or would just cause the very same criticisms to reignite in essentially the same form the next day.
Facebook is already doing moderation of political content posted by non-politicians. See the latest news about content removed about Lindsey Graham. Facebook is choosing not to stay on the sidelines themselves already. They are just doing so for politicians.
The status quo of Facebook is worse than them not touching any of the political content on their site.
This is yet another example of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't. If Facebook did literally no moderation whatsoever, then there would be (and indeed was, in the past) a furor of complaint over their callous indifference to society. The second Facebook censors anything, they are immediately hit with a furor of complaint that, under those standards, they are obligated to censor some slightly less objectionable thing. They resist for a while, then cave in, and the cycle repeats. For the past 10 years this has been a reliable mine of outrage porn, but not a cause of real progress.
This is yet another example of you just dodging the problem. FB is arbitrarily demarcating a line of their choosing with no consistency. Politicians are no different from people, and should not be treated to a special "free speech pass" on FB. Free speech for all, or free speech for none. There's no decent reasoning behind this midway solution. The true reason for this is that the politicians have regulatory leverage over FB.
I addressed exactly this. This is what you are doing:
> The second Facebook censors anything, they are immediately hit with a furor of complaint that, under those standards, they are obligated to censor some slightly less objectionable thing.
This is like trench warfare. Facebook never drew an arbitrary line: it just kept being pushed back by public and media pressure here and there, retreating in bits and pieces. Obviously if you just ignore that history, it looks like an arbitrary line now, but it was created by complaints almost identical to the ones you're making.
Retreating in bits and pieces is a choice made by Facebook. No one forced them to do this. It's their choice as a company trying maximize their visibility/profits. I don't think people would have left FB if FB just decided to not moderate political content at all. Just like right now, there is no exodus of people from FB in spite of the outrage.
You are attributing very little agency to a company that makes its decisions unilaterally (sometimes even ignoring laws). This is a gross misrepresentation of FB's position. FB is not a victim here.
It would not make the GOP politicians happy who wield their administrative power over FB, and have a lot of political capital invested in blatantly lying to the public.
