Free Speech & Politics Debate: Why People Are Mad At Facebook
Articles,  Blog

Free Speech & Politics Debate: Why People Are Mad At Facebook


100 Comments

  • PandaJohn71

    I personally think that political ads should be banned all together or have rules in place that state that only the candidate can produce the ads and they can only say why THEY are the right choice, no mudslinging, no misinformation. They should sell themselves to the people, not tear down their opponents.

  • Francois Lacombe

    Take all revenue from untruthful political ads and donate it to the political opponents of the owners of those ads. That will give them an incentive to stick more to the truth, or they will just be financing the campaings of their adversaries. 😉

  • mad26man26

    Facebook is the only one doing it sort of right. I don't want a world were corporations decide what I'm allowed to see/hear/read. Anyone who does is too short sighted and stupid to be a part of the conversation.

  • Victor Agata

    As much as I don't like Facebook, I have to agree with them on this one.

    Going down the path of having a platform regulate what is acceptable political speech will eventually lead to "it's free speech if I agree with it"

    Anyone paying attention to the changes in Reddit during the last year or so has seen this

  • Tyler Fisher

    Politicians should be suspended for intentionally posting false information or breaking the website’s policy. People with the platforms/audiences that politicians have should be held to higher standard than others, not a lower one.

  • Cosbification

    Just allow the politicians to say whatever they want in their posts but fact check the ads. Its an easy line to draw. By running ads with obvious lies facebook becomes complicit in disinformation campaigns. You would think they would want to avoid that.

  • Harley Middleton

    Another problem with social media companies, 1. Create spectacle, using social media to get news media coverage.

    2. Frame the spectacle through phrases that drive new audiences to find your frames through search engines.

    3. Become a “digital martyr” to help radicalize others.

  • HJC Dormouse

    I forgot that's where Nick Clegg went after he lost his seat as MP in UK.
    I can happily live without FB, Twitter, Instagram etc.
    I watch PDS as I know fact checked.
    On rare occasion mistake made you put hands up and say as soon as new info becomes available.
    I also read, watch variety of news sources.
    Social Media I feel are way to much influenced by advertising revenue and do not respond quickly enough to acknowledge when they get it wrong these platforms would get more respect if admit they are wrong at end of day we are all human and can jump sometimes on bandwagon when tensions run high on a story and not all significant information available however as story develops meaning behind story changes.
    Politics and social media, will always be controversial but we have to take personal responsibility to check facts ourselves as well not just accept everything we read, see.

  • Naj Renchelf

    I think part of the reason FB gets the most backlash is because of the ZuckBot meme – poor Mark, didn‘t ask for any of this! 😂

  • Dinomikeus

    I guess my question is if a political candidate runs an add with information that has been debunked are they open to a lawsuit for slander?

  • Saturn666

    I would say political ads are fine, BUT, I've seen enough American political ads to know that they are less about "This candidate stands for X," and more about "This guy is so much better than these people!", not to mention that a lot of political ads are basically just takedown pieces (called Attack Ads) aimed to slander or discredit someone, which is what the Joe Biden ad was. Because a lot of these attack ads rely on misinformation, rumours, or things of that nature, it sullies the entire idea of political ads, especially if they are allowed despite regurgitating slanderous, disproven falsehoods. If attack ads weren't allowed, maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

  • Christian Coleman

    I think it’s everyone’s responsibility to call out and not spread incorrect information. It’s not just the responsibility of the end user and the person spreading it, but also up to the company that is allowing the promotion to happen. That’s why there are so many laws on false advertisement. This is the exact reason. Otherwise you will have people provide a convincing argument about something that is totally false and not be held accountable.

  • Joseph Coto

    Perhaps thry can still let the political ads say what they say but put up a flair dictating that the information is not factual and why. That would bypass most worries over cencorship.

  • Todd Perks

    The problem I see with censoring of the info is that one side is just going to clame its falce every time they are attacked doesnt matter what side of the isle they are .. people need to do research and believe more than just a click bate title and if they find something that Intrests them then look more into it. As a people we have become lazy and intilted and read one thing in the internet and clame it has to be true and find it easy to just jump on any bandwagon and say something offends us and that whatever it is needs to change cause I dont agree with it . Instead of just ignoring it and moving on with life. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion wrong or not but the second someone tells me I have to change mine cause they dont agree that's where the issue lies

  • Philip Robinson

    This isn't just a Facebook problem, and I think that's the story that needs to be told. If you run a fake political ad on CNN or Fox there should be a independent review board responsible for censoring this information too

  • Alex LY

    In a ideal world i agree with Zuckeberg, it shouldn't be facebook job to fact check politicians. The saddest thing is too many politicians just say anything just to get ahead, without any care for the truth. So in our imperfect world I still think they should fact check politicians ads and news.

  • Etterra

    We need laws like they have in the UK where politicians have a (very low) maximum amount of money they can spend on ads. We're a much bigger country, so it'd have to be tiered. We'd also have to nuke super PACs and kill $=speech hard.

  • Katea Jurors

    You have a ton of links down below to all sorts of crap which one's the one to the misleading ad that talks about Biden and what Trump was doing. I hate it that YouTube has become just and their descriptions a junk full of repeated things that is posted in every video and then a whole bunch of hyperlink without explaining what each one's for. You're not even time-stamping the source information like people have to for essays or reports where you put in that little number thing to show where the sources.

  • TheMistyBlueLounge

    People (myself included) need to get involved in their actual community again, instead of expecting Facebook to highlight everything that's happening, and everything that's not on Facebook going un-noticed. Go out and interact with people, get involved with organizations, try to make a difference… because if we all stand back and expect politicians and private tech companies to shape our values and provide us with news stories then we're all pretty much screwed in the long run, and we're heading back to the Dark Ages in some sense.

    We're all in this together, and expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting isn't going to work… I think most of us probably need to immerse ourselves in our LOCAL communities more, and step back from this constant global news cycle that's at least 50% BS meant to distract us, or simply confuse and irritate.

  • Talha Mukhtar

    It’s disingenuous for FB to claim that barring these false ads will lead to a future where tech companies become arbiters of truth. First, politicians aren’t merely speakers in the community; they’re informers, and have special authority to claim facts as true.

    Second, political ads like the ones discussed aren’t misinformation, they’re DISinformation. They’re part of campaigns to get large audiences to believe something false by taking advantage of their position in the public trust

    At this point, the issue is no longer mere speech, but abuse of public position. It shouldn’t be legal for blatantly false political ads to exist, if they can be proven false. That can happen without violating the first amendment, and by the same logic can be instituted as tech policy without restricting free speech

  • perfectpitchtodd

    Debunked by the news media that is largely run by the left. These are the same new providers that give Hillary Clinton a pass for breaking laws. Facebook is already biased toward the left. Who decides what is true and what isn't.

  • T0neKnee

    The Zucc is not more concerned about fair elections and misinformation campaigns as he is about money. That's the issue.

    Imho, political ads should be banned from social media entirely. These platforms are too immature to handle political ads. They just see a bunch of zeros and smash that 'agree'.

  • Fedjen Dagger

    i'm personaly with Dempsey on this one, ban political ads all together. The whole argument of a level playing field makes no sense because people with more money can always buy more ads which let's be honest, people with ludicrous amounts of money having all the power over there is in large part THE reason why there is such a ludicrous wealth inequality in america.

  • TheCreepypro

    I get what Mark is saying and he's not wrong but there is an exception to every rule and fighting misinformation is definitely a part of that

  • Nicky s

    okay so all the links you gave are just like you JUST TALKING about a ad video that was made by trump with falsehoods in it. I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT AD/VIDEO like wtf happened to it and what about mentioning the "facts" that where debunked? Who proved him wrong and what allegations were made? I have never had this hard of a time trying to find out what trump said.. Gahhhhh I just want to know!!!!

  • Derek Loreth

    I like how she said the video had been widely debunked by many news sources. There is a video on YouTube of Biden giving a speech where he said that he withheld money to get a prosecutor fired. He was bragging about it. So tell me again how it was debunked? O yes that's right because The New York Times & CNN said so

  • Jesse S

    Lying shouldn’t be considered “free speech” it should be defined correctly as lying.

    Throughout our history there has always be lying amongst candidates, called mud slinging, but back then it was much more difficult to tell truth from fiction. I feel like our technical prowess requires us to be better so that our society doesn’t suffer from stupid people with a microphone…

  • Gaydolf Hitler

    If a politician makes a fake add, it should be the politicians fault and left up to the law, not the media. the truth is almost never black and white. I agree with Zuckerburg 100% here

  • C h.

    All of there 3rd party "fact" checking partners are mostly if not all Democrat organizations. Of Course the democrats are mad facebook is not using them to censor there opposition. Free speech advocates support facebook.

  • Pwnyboy90

    I gotta side with the Zuck for once. Free speech is free speech. They’re free to be lying, scandalous pieces of trash. They’re politicians, after all.
    I think it’s too much responsibility for Facebook to fact check everything shared on their site. If an individual can’t fact check on their own, they deserve to be lied to. Plus, it would open the door for people at Facebook to filter things they don’t like or agree with, which is worse than not filtering bullshit stories. Just my opinion

  • ew275x

    Facebook is not a public forum, it's a complicated application providing a personalized content experience that exists solely to make Facebook money. It's not a debate app.

    I think the solution is too simply take away Facebook's ability to target specific narrow audiences. Then political ad buys will be expensive and the ad will stay in the public sphere. Like Prime time tv. If they really have to spend a big chunk of money to put an ad that will be seen by millions of eyeballs, they would really need to think over the content and investment.

  • Nichole Kelley

    It is not Facebook's place to police people on their speaking. I sure do NOT want any company telling me how I can speak, and or what I am allowed to speak on.

  • ken juan

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't…sometimes people don't even know the unintended consequences of some of the demands they make…

  • Douglas Dye

    I believe that Mark is right in his statement that a private company should not be able to censor what a politician says. Either ban all ads or none at all. When a company or entity or whoever starts to pick and choose what is allowed or not or misinformation, then the platform does not stand for free speech. In the end, it's up to the company/entity/whoever to stand by their mission statements and if the company/entity/whoever is supposed to be a free platform (Facebook being a popular and much used platform for the populace) they should allow speech without restrictions. To crack down on misinformation is a noble goal but will be a hard one. Especially when cross referencing is needed to determine the justified action if labeling a statement as false. It takes time.

  • ShroomWalrus

    What I don't understand is why other individuals and companies aren't allowed to spread lies, but specifically politicians are? If you don't want to be a regulator of truth that should apply universally, not just for politicians.

  • Quentin Styger

    When a politician lies to your face, there are no criminal repercussions. If you want honest politicians, then you have to change the laws and make your law makers accountable. America is a political and legal shit show.

  • Morgan Newsom

    I agree with Zuck. It's not the platforms responsibility to micromanage what someone posts. They are a social media, not a News Outlet. The old saying of "Don't believe everything you read on Facebook" is true. And if the politics are willingly lying to the American people we should be calling them out on it. Not Zuck and the Facebook team. The issue is with the fake news creators themselves. If they don't go and find out the truth before sharing it with others, and the people of the united states don't invest in their own research outside of a social media outlet, it's not the platforms fault. The platform itself is saying we want to protect the freedom of speech, and it has been determined by the creator that these ads fit in this catagory of freedom of speech. It's the people creating these false articles we should be upset with.

  • A Wolff

    I feel like the host Maria is planning on running for office or practicing her sign language techniques with her hand movements… please please tie your hands behind your back when you do these news segments anyone else seeing this?

  • Vorago

    I mean this sort of comes down to facebook being in favor of the Citizens United decision and Twitter being opposed…
    I mean they've both said you can say whatever you want on your personal page, the difference being whether you can pay for your speech to be seen, i.e. does money/paid speech equal free speech.
    Edit: It's fucking weird that private companies are in this position where they're deciding this kind of political decision for themselves…

  • raptor152

    I believe it is fine to have political posts on Facebook, but they need to be fact checked. This they can't/won't do that, then they should be banned entirely.

  • Adelai

    I think that removing all political ads is the best move for Democracy. I agree with the notion that attention should be earned as far as politicians go. I dislike all political ads because they detract from the facts of the election, and I think their targeted use of social media is dangerous

  • Orthus100

    Rules for me but not for thee. There's no reason anyone should be skipping around the stated rules in the first place. Vile shit is vile shit, doesn't matter if a politician says it.

    As for ads, it's so disingenuous to say that a small candidate needs ads to get their ideas out as a defense for the blatant lies that make these companies money.

  • Benjamin Cooper

    A private company declining to run ads that have been proven false by independent fact-checkers isn't "censorship", it's basic corporate ethics.

  • Marius Käßer

    I think they should either ban all adds or form a fact checking team that puts disclaimers on all political adds, explaining how this add reflects the truth.
    Of course building a team that is unpartisan and works after clear rules is difficult but just saying that "We are not the only one" will not solve the problem.
    While Facebook passes the buck to others adds like these divide countrys and people and lead to a more extreme, populistic and untruthul political climate than it was before.

  • Mishawaka Post

    Hola bastardo hermoso ❤❤❤❤❤, fist bumps 👊👊👊👊👊, high fives/pats on the back ✋✋✋✋✋, extra thumbs up 👍👍👍👍👍 Maria (looking especially spiffy as usual) ❤❤❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

  • WilliamZelpher

    Literally no group lies more than Democrats and the “media” only debunks things that go against the Democrats agenda. Content like this pushes me towards unsubscribing not only from Rogue Rocket but from all related Philly D channels. :/ Please keep the obvious bias out of your videos or you’re going to watch your sub counts plummet.

  • Her Name

    The world is so messed up. Big corporations continue to do whatever they want no matter how much we are talking about it. Its time to lay down or start a revolution.

  • Venton D3

    It should be about the power of ideas and their appeal to people. Good ideas should be able to spread naturally, without sponsorship. Banning political ads, just like what Jack did, is in my view a step closer to the founding principle of democracy – the public should determine if an idea is worth spreading, not a profit-driven company. And then the public could rightfully claim the responsibility should the idea turn out to be a bad one.

  • benjamin mendoza

    They should have an even playing field because all of these social media platforms seem to shift towards the left media anyways. At this point it should be fighting fire with fire because there is no way to distinguish between who is putting out wrong information when you can just have any search engine support whatever opinion you have.

  • Brianna Arnold

    You can't outlaw candidate ads on social media. Social media is the way most (especially younger people) get the news. Movements have been made in our society, solely from social media, that govern how a situation is portrayed, handled, and "delt" with. #metoo, open light on the Flint water crisis, impeachment of the President, Takashi 69's reputation, and all other memes and news stories that otherwise would not have been adressed. It takes critical thinkers to navigate, not only the world in which they live in, but also their on social media. So basically, stupid is as stupid does. Fact check yourself…. Know your own beliefs…This is basic knowledge. Stop coddling the stupid.

  • Jill Bond

    Any medium that uses a broadcast model (many to many) to distribute information needs to be held to similar ethical and legal standards. Particularly advertising that is political, that is anything outside commercial advertisements needs to be approved in a similar process that for television and radio. Social media is a many to many but advertisements is a targeted broadcast, one to many, and there needs to be equal standards across media.

  • Veracious James.

    What happened to personal accountability? Only YOU are responsible for the information you consume. You should be your own fact checker. The problem is we have a society that wants big tech and big government to take care of them. What happens when these fact checkers have an agenda and push false information? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and having the power to determine what is "real" will eventually be corrupted.

  • Dean Timm

    People need to fact check everything, it's not a new saying if it sounds too good to be true it normally not. Scepticism should always be there because in the end of the day theses people are paid for by the people to represent our values in the world wide stage

  • CoverEye

    If your platform is truly about free speech then why does it have separate clauses for politicians? Clearly it's not about the speech if a regular Joe can't get away with saying the same thing. Not to mention it would be more genuine if they didn't promote and profit off of it.

  • misscrackwood

    Another issue is that what Facebook considers political ads really is suggestive… A friend of mine organised a xmas market with first nation creators only, when trying to run an ad to promote the event, Facebook kept refusing it, saying it was a political subject, and that she wasn't allowed to run her ad. Nothing in the event was political, it appeared that the only mention of "first nation" was enough to block her. After making a post about it on Facebook and Instagram, she finally was able to run her ad, after ~10 tries.
    I'm all for not allowing any political ads. Promoting false informations should not be tolerated. But Facebook need to redefine what is political and what is not.
    All in all, it's a very slippery slope.
    About my friend's event. Turned out to be a huge success. So many people manually shared the event, that even more people got aware of it than if the ad had worked the first time. In your face, Facebook 😛

  • B C

    I don't know why I agree but Sascha Cohen said it best. In the hands of a propaganda minister like goebbels Facebook is a weapon. The simple fact is they need to not take money for political ads. With TV and radio you are sort of targeting niches but with algorithms now you can micro target posts… I don't care if they sell you products but when they can specifically lie to people who are vulnerable to the intrusions? I'm looking at you boomers. The reason they won't ban ads is their bottom line plain and simple and that should fucking worry you. We already saw Facebook used as a tool for terror in Myanmar. Now imagine that elsewhere? Imagine you could target ads to invoke outrage about trump impeachment for those on nra posts or who have been searching for guns? Do you not see the potential weapon this is? You're saying a private company shouldn't be in charge of pruning content and you're right because you just shouldn't do any. We can't have nice this because people are horrible. 🙄 You have limitless ability to prune a nipple from a woman but banning political ads? That's the line right

  • Charles Badger

    I think Facebook is doing the right thing. When our founding fathers established our country they established it on the basis that the people are capable of governing themselves, this applied in every facet including determining for our selves what is fact and what isn't. Facebook should not be doing that for us.

  • Charles Badger

    Nothing about the Ukraine – joe biden relationship has been debunked. The documentation about their relationship and Hunter Biden's relationship is very compelling and nothing about it has been debunked. The sources that said it was debunked were lying, out right lying. That isn't Rogue Rocket, that is the sources they referenced. When it does come to light, this video will need to be corrected for Rogue Rocket's reputation to remain in tact.

  • ohford

    When did lying become free speech? Imagine your child lied to you and their response was its free speech or "it was my take on the situation"

  • Derrick Ng

    1. Is taking a fee for a political ad considered a choice?
    2. Does choosing to not accept the ad equal censorship given that the candidate is allowed to post it but not "promote" it via paid promotion processes?
    *3. Not accepting an ad in this case is not the same as choosing not to do business with a protected class. Misinformation classification is not a protected class. This is analogous to not accepting ads that contain slurs. Slurs are not a protected class.

  • Damon's Old Soul

    They said it early on. Let them post whatever they want on their pages but either fact check or simply ban political adds on social media.
    The ability to target specific audiences, unlike say radio or TV, has impacts and implications that are beyond what we can even fathom at the moment. Letting targeting adds run with such precision targeting is dangerous and possibly a game changing opportunity to manipulate the information someone gets and hence have control over their vote. Scary to say the least.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *