Zuckerberg say candidates can lie and no trouble on FB

[CmdrKing]

Okay, but that's not what he's saying.

He's saying it's morally wrong to regulate Facebook's political content in any way whatsoever. Which is false.

In what universe should Facebook be exempt from FEC regulation? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/advertising/

In what way are things like doctored video of political figures *not* a political ad that require the exact same regulation as any political ad?
It may not be practicable from every user on Facebook of course, but it sure as fuck is something Facebook can and must monitor from promoted political figures and paid advertisements.

[Admiral X]

Considering the fact that FB has been regulating political content on itself all along, it also makes this basically a joke.

[CmdrKing]

Zuckerberg is either a dishonest fucker even by the standards of billionaires or he is way, way more into the particular brand of Silicon Valley Politics that claim algorithms can replace human moderation than he can possibly justify given what's happened on Facebook.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Okay, but that's not what he's saying.

He's saying it's morally wrong to regulate Facebook's political content in any way whatsoever. Which is false.

In what universe should Facebook be exempt from FEC regulation? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/advertising/

In what way are things like doctored video of political figures *not* a political ad that require the exact same regulation as any political ad?
It may not be practicable from every user on Facebook of course, but it sure as fuck is something Facebook can and must monitor from promoted political figures and paid advertisements.

Idunno, what Raven said doesn't seem so misrepresenting. Zbg's address as per the link is that Facebook shouldn't presume itself as a distinguished 3rd party arbitrator in such matters. The ethical principles that you're specifically referring to are a fair implication of what he said, but I don't think it has much weight either way beyond what his position as a single enterprise.

All that being said, I think there are empirical journalist standards that could duly be employed one way or the other, so I ultimately agree with you I'd say.

[LittleRaven]

Okay, but that's not what he's saying.

That's what he's saying in this article.

“People worry, and I worry deeply, too, about an erosion of truth,” Zuckerberg told The Washington Post ahead of a speech at Georgetown University. “At the same time, I don’t think people want to live in a world where you can only say things that tech companies decide are 100 percent true. And I think that those tensions are something we have to live with."

Now he says lots of other things in other places, and he's certainly said a lot about how he feels Facebook should be regulated, so you're not wrong - but I was mostly looking at this article.

In what universe should Facebook be exempt from FEC regulation? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/advertising/

I don't think Zuckerberg's theories on how Facebook should be regulated get a whole lot of support from the public at large. Even Congress would like to see some new rules put in. But that's hard, given just how dysfunctional the FEC has become. (We don't have a SINGLE commissioner with an active term, and Trump is not helping this situation AT ALL.)

[CmdrKing]

I took that as rhetorical misdirection. Legally you can't ask anyone to "decide" truth outside court so that was never on the table, so logically Zuckerberg is talking about things that could legally happen (regulating Facebook like any other news outlet, which is a completely reasonable standard to hold their ads and other promoted content to) and pretending that amounts to asking him to arbitrate "truth".

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

In what universe should Facebook be exempt from FEC regulation? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/advertising/

I don't think Zuckerberg's theories on how Facebook should be regulated get a whole lot of support from the public at large. Even Congress would like to see some new rules put in. But that's hard, given just how dysfunctional the FEC has become. (We don't have a SINGLE commissioner with an active term, and Trump is not helping this situation AT ALL.)

Also, It seems that his decision is bounded between banning political ads and just letting them roll. That's just another aspect of complication that he's putting forth about the situation.

As principled or studious or w/ever as Zuckerburgh is, I'd think he'd get to the middle of something like that. Not sure how much I'm basing that on the movie version though.

[LittleRaven]

I took that as rhetorical misdirection.

Well that's fair. Zuckerberg is a Class A douche, after all.