A former Facebook executive says the company can't stay out of politics

nanoguy

TS Addict
Staff member

When Jack Dorsey announced that Twitter will ban all political ads, some viewed the move as ineffective but otherwise affordable, considering the company made less than $3 million in revenue for political ads that ran during the 2018 midterm elections. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg fiercely defended his company's decision to skip the fact-checking when it comes to political discourse. At the opposite pole, Google has remained silent on the matter, even as its advertising empire benefits client organizations like the Trump Make America Great Again Committee.

Recently, Yaël Eisenstat wrote an op-ed on the Washington Post where she explained that Facebook in particular is in the business of spreading information like wildfire, something that runs contrary to its ideals of free speech and political neutrality. She joined the company in June 2018 as head of global integrity operations and left six months later.

During those six months, Eisenstat wanted to use the skills she learned as a diplomat and White House adviser to help Facebook navigate the waters of political discourse without damaging democracy in the process. After more than a year, the company looks like it lost control of its platform and is looking to profit from the way lies are amplified on it and then aimed precisely at the groups of people that will have the highest chance of engaging with them.

Zuckerberg previously said he was proud of how his team addressed Facebook's many woes. While Eisenstat agrees with him that the company shouldn't place an outright ban on political advertising like Twitter, it could suspend it until it has figured how to be more transparent about its targeting practices. A simple reason for this is that banning political ads on a big social platform hurts smaller parties and candidates and favors those that already have access to traditional media.

Her opinion echoes the dissent of hundreds of Facebook employees that have asked for an honest discussion that could steer the company in the right direction. She noted that while Facebook does verify the identity of advertisers who want to run political ads before taking their money, it runs the risk of creating a false image of credibility.

Eisenstat tried to push for a policy change but she and her team were met with resistance and accused of "creating confusion." Apparently, the solutions they were building would have run a high cost because they needed to be adapted to a lot of different local realities. The company wanted a cheap and scalable solution that wouldn't have a big effect on the bottom line.

This adds to mounting pressures for Facebook to be broken up into smaller companies and telling regulators about the way it achieved its current power in the social media space. The company could stay out of politics, but that would require changes that are unlikely to be started from the inside. Eisenstat called for regulation "to deal directly with the incentives and business models of these platforms and the societal harms they are causing."

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

TS Evangelist
They seem to be on the right track. With highly influential companies like social media groups they should be faced with only two decisions; either stay entirely OUT of politics or engage fact checking and delete those that choose to exaggerate or lie. Those that choose to do otherwise should face hefty penalties with the 1st person to do prison time be the CEO's & Operations Managers.
 

p51d007

TS Evangelist
DUH! Politics..."makes money" because people love to debate, and, unless you are blocking ads, they populate everything with ads, click bait etc.
 

Yynxs

TS Addict
Anyone remember the base reason for 'net neutrality' and the resultant legal protections afforded the big techs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
"Research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate.[11] ...
Proponents of net neutrality, which include computer science experts, consumer advocates, human rights organizations, and Internet content providers claim that net neutrality helps to provide freedom of information exchange, promotes competition and innovation for Internet services, and upholds standardization of Internet data transmission which was essential for its growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
"...Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider ..."

The obvious question is not whether they're playing politics. The question is: Can we tax them more now they're playing politics?

That should be fun to watch.
 

Danny101

TS Guru
Political Ads have always been and will always be political spin. Fact-checking political ads is like expecting jello to be stable.