When a magical cure company makes false claims about the efficacy of their products, you sue the company, not the newpaper who printed the ad.
Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range? That's what laws and courts are for.
I'm so tired of libertarian fairy tales.
It's frankly unworkable to outsource morality and ethics to the government, even if you allow extreme surveillance and control. The law is there to catch serious cases where personal ethics and morality have failed. Yeah, that contradicts the DRY principle [1], but life isn't a software system.
Also, IIRC, the idea that the "system" is one were "companies [merely] maximize profits" within legal limits set by the government is a rather recent but false view [2]. The Age of Enlightenment didn't start in the 1970s.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
[2] This seems to give a decent summary: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stout_C...
I tend the think the source of the lie is the thing that should be attacked. Who has the most responsibility here: the advertiser for lying, the network for showing the lie, the ISP for delivering the content with a lie, the laptop for displaying the lie?
With magazines, television etc you are targeting everyone. So if you run an ad that said "Vote for me because I will build a border wall" then you will attract 30% of the population and alienate the other 70%.
With Facebook you can just target that 30% whilst guaranteeing the 70% won't be affected since they won't see the ads. That is the feature that is unique to Facebook that is causing all of the problems.
If you run an ad in the newspaper that says 'pro-skub people want to literally kill all anti-skubs', that is broadcasted to everyone. People outside of the target group can independently fact check it and/or apply pressure to the paper itself to remove an obviously fake and inflammatory ad.
Now let's say you run that same ad on Bookface. You target specifically the anti-skub people, and especially those that are already predisposed against those that are pro-skub. Even if your ad is obviously fake, you're contributing to the radicalization of a group which increases divisiveness. This becomes much harder to independently fact check because when you search that ad on Dooble you find results which seem to reinforce that ads message because all of these algorithms are optimizing for engagement.
30% (increase) + 70% (decrease) = No difference
30% (increase) + 70% (no change) = Increase
Pretty sure a specific 'type' of person reads that crap. It's like Alex Jones' in print. There are probably other similar 'print' publications.
If you hit a specific magazine/publication you can target a specific demographic without hitting 'all of us'....
Edit: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agree FB needs tempered a bit. I believe though that truth doesn't need to be in ALL ads, but if it's political in nature or could affect society at large then yes it should be controlled.
Power. The tallest weed gets the shears. If Facebook doesn't like being the tallest weed in the garden it's free to split itself up. Until then harbouring a persecution complex just makes it lose reputation. And until Facebook can operate outside off planet it's still going to have to learn to live with the people on it. And there's been a long history to read up on about the different methods humanity resorts to when it's ticked off enough with those in power and lose hope of them changing course on their own initiative.
In my country responsibility lies with the network because it's the last part of the system that isn't a dumb pipe. To tackle the source of the lie will require dropping the first Ammendment as a prerequisite. Facebook employees having nice happy unchecked good days isn't worth that.
Facebook’s entire argument, until recently, is that they aren’t a publisher.
For TV “The FCC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material.”
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadc...
And the Federal Trade Commission... “When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.”
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert...
The reason we hear about magical cures in spam email & telemarketing is precisely because publishers are held accountable for what they publish & don’t allow those ads in newspapers, magazines, or on TV.
No. In newspapers and billboards there are human beings involved who have sense enough to make sure things like this don't happen (thought there are cases where bosses will override common sense).
For Google and Facebook, everything is automated so there is zero accountability by design. And when something goes wrong, SV companies point fingers at algorithms and put out pithy press releases saying, "We can do better" but things only seem to get worse.
Not true, there are laws that govern what can and cannot be advertised, and how. The reason cigarette companies don't publish TV or print ads is because the government made it illegal to do so. Publishers would face legal action for running illegal ads.
> Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range?
They already have this authority, and they choose again and again to exercise zero discretion. The fact that we're arguing over whether or not FB should have the right to choose whether or not to run these types of ads is so absurd.
Do they currently not hold such power?