Activism-driven policy is generally not a great governance model - you might satisfy the 250 employees who signed the letter, but disgruntle 5000 silent others who strongly believe it's not Facebook's job to fact-check political ads.
But in general, this policy _could_ be good. I think politicians should be responsible for the claims they make and making clearly false statements should at the least be a fine-able offense. Other examples of crappy advertising are "X cures Y" without evidence to prove so, overtly sexual advertising, etc.
Internet-based advertising does need to step its game up, perhaps threatening "regulate yourselves, or we'll regulate you" could work as it does in the UK (at least for big tech). I guess that it mostly works in the UK because many of these media companies have a license/legal consequence on the line also.
If one Dehomag worker had engaged in "activism" to stop their collusion in the Holocaust, she'd have disgruntled 5,000 "silent" Nazis.
The fact is, Facebook's algorithms mediate our cultural superstructure. They either do so publicly, and explicitly, or privately–and then we're subject either to their whims, or an unknowable, unpredictable black box.
One cannot disappear the room by covering one's eyes.[1]
While your choice of comparative examples is patently absurd, you're actually arguing for a principled approach to governance rather than an activist one. And on that we agree - I think decisions should be made based on principle rather than based on who yells the loudest.
As for Facebook "mediating our cultural superstructure", this is a completely untestable and probably ideological claim.
To the contrary, there's been quite a lot of research indicating that Facebook has an outsize influence on culture to the point that it's substantially affected elections (and not just America's). Google "facebook influence research" and you'll see plenty of interesting results.
"Cultural superstructure" is a term ripped right out of Marxist literature, so it's already so burdened with ideological implications as to be inappropriate for serious research.
Not that that's any better. Kind of worse, actually.
Banning pork[0] for all meals being one of them, or maybe something like being forced to wear a burqa[1]?
I mean, if there was a pro-trump activism rally in your workplace and seemingly the majority of workers were pro-trump, would you be silent? I would.
(FWIW I'm playing devils advocate, suggesting that not all activism promotes social justice or advancement of society)
[0]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3936/denmark-bans-meatbal...
[1]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10323303/I-was-for...
I was suggesting that a good number of things that happen are a byproduct of activism.
All that said, it cracks me up that HN does a vote down on such basic sociological things. What a culture.