I seems a good idea, just like the Federal Election Commission, it will be politicized and ineffective. However, it is a good idea, as long as it also includes Democrats showing that they will give free college, free college debt relief, Universal Health Care without a increase in taxes, just like Trump said he would give a better, less expensive heath care and a wall if they elected him. None of this will happen or could happen in the next few years, so is this also Truth-in-Advertising. I hope so, I am sick of candidates on both sides lying to us on what they will do if elected. That is why I will never vote for the three amigos, Trump (a crazy/crook President) Sanders (who says he will give us anything free to get our vote), and Warren (who says she will give Universal Health Care without increasing our taxes and take my heath insurance away). Please everyone stop lying to us.
I wrote this a few years ago at danablankenhorn.com but it bears repeating.
If you don’t take responsibility for the medium you create, someone else will. And they won’t have your interests at heart.
The problem with Facebook goes beyond advertising. The editorial corruption, intentional, foreign, malign, is far more devastating.
Facebook still refuses to take responsibility for the medium they’ve created. If they don’t they should have that medium taken away from them.,
How about requiring transparency? And If you post an ad, you must give the name of an individual or organization that takes responsibility for its content. If the content proves to be false, as determined by a preestablished bipartisan and independent committee, there would be a penalty and a requirement that the promoter of the ad produce a retraction. You’d need a fast turn around.
This is unwieldy and just a first shot, but I think requiring transparency AND a designated name of a responsible party who is guaranteeing the truth of the facts asserted - not opinions - would be a start. The anonymity of postings and the lack of accountability is a key to fostering lies that proliferate. There is no first amendment right to lie to mislead. It is just like the old exemption to the first amendment: you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater if there’s no fire. In both scenarios you create unwarranted danger.
The major drawback here is that so-called “fact-checking” itself has fallen into disrepute, especially when establishment-friendly organizations and journalists attack candidates who challenge the status quo. Ask Bernie Sanders how this works.
There are a couple of issues that undermine this article.
- It seems to accept the Zuckerberg/Facebook argument that it can’t demand accuracy in political ads due to “free speech” concerns. This is bullpucky. Facebook is a private entity and can dictate what standards it accepts for advertising. It also ignores the fact that CNN and NBCU (among others) have rejected political ads due to inaccuracies and falsehoods. (Fox News rejected an ad for an anti-fascism/anti-Nazi film – perhaps because it looked too much like a Trump rally.) This happens pretty regularly. Simply because an ad is submitted by a political entity doesn’t mean that Facebook has to accept it as is. Ads can be rejected without harming freedom of speech. Facebook is just choosing to appease one side.
- This commission would add a layer of bureaucracy. Would all political ads have to go through it (including state and local ads?) Who would pay for it? It would also be in the position of being strangled (like the FEC currently is) if there were not enough appointments to have a quorum. I’m also sure that the GOP would try to defund it at every turn.
- Then you have the constitutional issues (some of which were raised in the article). Would each ad have to carry a disclaimer at the beginning (like movies do about their ratings) indicating that the ad was deemed “accurate,” “questionable,” etc.?
- The article also ignores the fact that Zuckerberg has been bending over backwards meeting with right-wing politicians and media to appease them – he has not done the same for the left or brought both sides together. This refusal to stand up for the truth is just another attempt by Zuckerberg to curry favor with the right wing. Democracy be damned.
I’m not sure that a government commission is the way to go here. Perhaps a not-for-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental agency might work better. In that case, it would have to be voluntary, but if a campaign chose not to submit the ad to the agency, then it could be assumed to have dubious claims in it.
Such a commission is not going to stop Drudge, Breitbart, Jacob Wohl, James O’Keefe/Project Veritas, etc. from creating lies out of whole cloth and pushing them in the right-wing bubble. Facebook is just helping them out.
Simple solution. Offer the DNC or Biden the opportunity to send an ad in response to precisely the original Trump ad recipients without disclosing the list of recipients. Same equal time rule that applies to traditional media should apply to the new media. Very simple.Will Zuckerberg do it?
Seriously. Fuck Zuckerberg and his desperate attempt to avoid federal regulations. It’s time to take that mafk to the mat! Facebook and all the major platforms should be regulated up the wazoo. Society is unraveling on their watch.
and I guess no “Good, Kind, Decent People” voted for Jill Stein either?
You are far too “absolutist”. It’s not; “You are either with us or against us.” That way lays Civil War.
People make mistakes, and many corrected those “mistakes” in 2018. I expect a LOT more of them to correct their mistake in 2020 (assuming the Orange Shitstain is still on the ballot in 2020.)
“…it would need to be updated for today’s cyber world”
For decades, I’ve proposed that ALL political advertising include this disclaimer clearly shown on any print or electronic media, and spoken AND displayed at the beginning and end of any message:
“This advertisement includes political and public issue content and, as such, is not subject to truth in advertising laws. Therefore, any factual statements or images displayed may or may not be true and should be independently verified before accepting as fact.”
Zuckerberg is just about the $$$. He could care less about the Constitution or the country.
In response to his lame policy regarding false political ads, there is a half way decent solution. Not perfect but far better than Zuckerberg’s ridiculous arguments.
Facebook can send political ads through fact checkers along with all other ads but in the case of false political ads, place a banner somewhere on the political ad that warns that the ad is factually incorrect as determined by fact checkers… The ad gets posted but with a big warning across it. Zuckerberg doesn’t offend his view of the First Amendment but doesn’t trample it either.
So what do you think about that Zuckerberg?
I agree. Additionally, people could start posting many political ads on FB that are demonstrably false. To give FB the reputation of hosting only false ads - the place to go if you want to tell big lies. And the place to run from if you are looking for the truth.