I think FB (and Zuck) have made it pretty clear by now that they actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them. They understand what they’re doing.
Sure, this is a fair exception. FB has decided that it does not want to be a porn site. We may all disagree with that decision, but it's theirs to make.
> lies about non-political topics
Can you elaborate on this? It is 100% possible to post non-political lies on FB. The only exception to this is libel/defamation and false advertising, but that's for legal reasons. And even there, you can only sue for material damages incurred, and cannot simply sue for the speech in question (which is itself protected).
To the extent that FB wants its platform to contain political ads (factual or otherwise), it's because they subjectively see value in a global platform for users to decide for themselves what is true and what is false. You may argue that this is bad for society/bad for democracy, which is fair. Facebook clearly seems to disagree with that, which is also fair.
> Sure, this is a fair exception. FB has decided that it does not want to be a porn site. We may all disagree with that decision, but it's theirs to make.
Yes, they've made a decision to restrict what the users can see, because facebook thinks it's bad. That's their right, but it highlights their double standard. I don't disagree with the decision, but it shows that this line of reasoning is bogus.
> Can you elaborate on this? It is 100% possible to post non-political lies on FB.
Also, the community standards, which describes what facebook may take down has a section on integrity and authenticity. That includes manipulated media and false news. It's likely not enforced on most posts due to cost reasons, but it's absolutely a part of their terms of service.
"I want to build a platform where people freely discuss ideas (factual or infactual) and can pay extra to disseminate ideas more broadly (factual or infactual), but I don't want to build a porn site" is not a double standard, it's just a very specific point of view.
The need for internal consistency is odd, because you could just as easily use that argument to make a strong case that Facebook ought to allow pornography on their platform. The whole point is that they can build whatever kind of site/platform they want, as long as they follow their own terms of service (which is a legal contract). Their ToS could literally carve out an exception "Pornography is not allowed, except if Donald Trump posts it", and that wouldn't be a "double standard", it would just be yet another modification of their documented rules.
> They actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them.
To "They're legally allowed to remove whatever posts they want, and they don't need to be consistent about it".
There's a lot of shitty behavior that's legally allowed. That doesn't change the fact that "Lies are banned, unless a politician posts them" is a shitty and obviously self-serving stance to take.
"We've gone from
> They actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them.
To "They're legally allowed to remove whatever posts they want, and they don't need to be consistent about it"."
Your framing here suggests that you think that I've shifted my stance in some way, but that's not the case at all.
I, as a consumer of Facebook, enjoy the platform because I can (foremost) communicate with my friends/family, and also because the ads I see are relevant to my interests. I, as an independent swing voter, also enjoy being able to see political ads from everyone, directly from the horse's mouth. The fact that one is able to choose whether or not they want to consume political ads if they've already made up my mind, is great. Everyone gets what they want there.
While you're correct that ads can be misleading or wrong, and that an impressionable voter can see an ad that you may not want them to see, that is a consequence of living in a free society where information can be freely disseminated. I can persuade someone of the most incorrect or immoral point of view, and there's not much you can do to prevent me from doing that except to try and make your own case to persuade them back.
Freedom of speech (as a principle, not as a law) isn't just the freedom for the the speaker to disseminate their ideas, it's also the freedom of the audience to hear it. If you don't want to consume some speech, that's fine (and your prerogative), but that doesn't mean that you get to decide what I see. As for pornography, there are a ton of places one can go to consume unfettered pornography. There are not very many places one can participate in a virtual public square with a cacophony of ideas and views — it's really just Facebook or Twitter. In my subjective view I have less of a problem with Facebook disallowing pornography than I would of them disallowing political speech (paid or otherwise).
The fact that Facebook appears to be running their platform with this principle is in no way inconsistent with the statement "They actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them."
> In other words, their stance is currently "We'll only censor the unimportant things that the small guys post."
The links to Facebook's ToS that you provided appear to only disallow ads that could already be held liable for legal damage. And keep in mind that false advertising and defamation, in American law, is only regulated through material damages, not as a function of the speech itself. If a company posted an ad for a toaster that doesn't actually work, and nobody purchases the toaster, they can't be indemnified. It is only after someone buys a dud toaster, that they can sue the company for damages. All that being said, the unanimous NYT v Sullivan decision held that it is not illegal to make political promises that you can't keep, and it is not illegal to be publicly wrong about the facts. You cannot sue George HW Bush for raising your taxes after campaigning on "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" — it just doesn't work that way.
Insofar as FB also polices what a private individual has to say about something, I think we can find common ground and agree that this is bad, and antithetical to Facebook's purported stance on free information.
> The fact that Facebook appears to be running their platform with this principle is in no way inconsistent with the statement "They actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them."
What the hell are you talking about, "running it consistently with this principle?" Facebook is very much a platform that restricts free speech.
They even restrict political speech. Unless it comes from a political campaign. So, no, as an individual, you don't even have the option to present your own arguments.
> Facebook is very much a platform that restricts free speech.
I made my case for why this is not the case.
1. We agree that pornography restriction is a violation of free expression. Because there are other alternatives, I feel less bad about their restriction of it. Because there are no other alternatives to an open public square of ideas (such as Facebook), I feel stronger about it. It would obviously be ideal if Facebook took an "anything goes" approach and allowed others to build client-side tooling for individually controlled moderation.
2. To the extent that Facebook restricts speech outside of pornography, it is either speech that is a) already restricted by the legal system (false advertising, intellectual property violations, defamation) or b) an overzealous regulation of speech. Again, I reiterate: WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND and agree that (b) is bad. Continue to call that out. Complaining about FB's political ad policies is IMO an ineffective way to change (b).
Unless you're able to address those points, you can take it or leave it.
> They even restrict political speech. Unless it comes from a political campaign. So, no, as an individual, you don't even have the option to present your own arguments.
They absolutely do not do this. Please provide evidence of this. God knows my entire feed is filled with political speech by friends and family, so if you're right about this, I may have the cudgel I need!
> They absolutely do not do this. Please provide evidence of this. God knows my entire feed is filled with political speech by friends and family, so if you're right about this, I may have the cudgel I need!
Repeat some of the messages that Trump cross posted to both Twitter and Facebook. Facebook will take them down for violating community standards.
Do they remove all political speech? No. Do they enforce their restrictions unless you're a political figure? Yes.
