Facebook said it will not check ads posted by a political candidate in California, but now Facebook says that it will fact check the ads.
Last September, the social network said that the politicians or candidates would not be fact-checked.
To test this policy, A Californian Adriel Hampton enrolled as a candidate and tried to run a false ad.
Facebook blocked the ad and said that Mr. Hampton registered as a candidate to get around our policies.
Twitter’s new ban on political ads
Facebook touch is confronting growing backlash because of its policy that allows politicians to lie in ads on facebook marketplace, and carpers have been asking the company to stop running political ads. The company hasn’t backed down, yet. But on the 30th October, Wednesday, fellow social media company Twitter said that it will stop all political ads on its platform worldwide.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made the statement in a series of tweets on Wednesday afternoon. He said that they believe political message reach should be earned and not bought.
In other words, politicians can still naturally tweet but they can’t pay to advertise.
Dorsey stated Twitter’s logic, explaining that political messages earn reach when people decide to follow or retweet an account. Paying for reach removes that decision, prompting highly enhanced and targeted political messages on people and said that they believe this decision should not be corrupted by money.
He said that internet advertisements can bring considerable risks to politics a dig at Facebook, which doesn’t fact-check ads from politicians.
Facebook search Political ad Policy turned into a mess
Facebook’s political ads strategy that allows politicians to lie on its platform has, predictably, turned into a mess.
Because it is facing pressure tests from politicians and political groups, Facebook is starting to make exemptions to its policy that it won’t fact-check advertisements published by politicians. It’s a position CEO Mark Zuckerberg in specific had taken a hard line on.
This all started this fall when Facebook announced it wouldn’t fact check political speeches, involving ads, and campaigns started to test the implications of this policy. In September, Facebook would not bring down an advertisement run by Donald Trump’s re-appointment campaign that made false claims about previous Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and their exercises in Ukraine. Facebook wasn’t the only platform to decline to pull the advertisement YouTube, Twitter, MSNBC, and Fox made a similar call yet Facebook got the most fire for it.
Democrats chose to challenge the strategy permitting counterfeit advertisements by running fake ads of their own on Facebook. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has risen as a savage Facebook carper in 2020, ran a fake ad asserting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had supported Trump’s re-appointment. Warren likewise, without proof, proposed that the informal organization had supported the arrangement as a component of a deal with Trump. What’s more, a week ago, a known freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got Zuckerberg to concede in a House hearing that he would most likely let her run ads against Republicans saying they bolstered the Green New Deal.
But in recent times, facebook down has weakened as progressives have tested the limitations of its policy. Also, the company took down an ad that falsely insisted Sen. Lindsey Graham supports the Green New Deal. A left-leaning political action committee, the Really Online Lefty League, had uploaded the ad, and Facebook said it took the measures because the ad came from a political action group, not a politician, and thus different rules were applied
In October, Facebook’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was queried by US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about the policy.
She asked whether she would be allowed to run ads on Facebook falsely claiming that Republican candidates had backed the “Green New Deal” environmental policy.
And He said ‘I think probably’.
Mr. Hampton runs a digital media agency and was influenced to make exactly such an advertisement.
In the advertisement, footage of a US congressman Lindsey Graham was edited to look like he was speaking in support of the Green New Deal.
The move on the Biden ad should have been an easy one for Facebook because It was the president of the United States making an evidently false assertion about the previous Vice President of the United States.
But taking down the ad would have developed two problems for Facebook. First, it would set a prejudice that Facebook is responsible for policing every false political ad on its platform.
The second and the bigger one problem would be that taking down the ad could also have caused just as much uproar as leaving it up. Trump and his supporters would most likely have cried foul. Facebook and other social media companies are already dogged by unfounded accusations by Republicans that their algorithms contain anti-conservative bias, and they have done a lot of legwork to try to prove they’re not.
In other words, when Facebook CEO talk, in defense of the ad policy, that most people don’t want to live in a world where you can only post things that technology companies deemed to be 100 percent true and that in a democracy, people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying what Mark is not saying is that the actual problem is that policing political ads would be politically unstable and hard.
The stress on facebook sign in to change the way it manages political ads includes some pressure from facebook messenger employees. They’re associating officials and social liberties bunches who need the informal community to overhaul its arrangement of giving government officials a chance to state nearly anything in promotions, even things that are false. We should take note of that Facebook is among NPR’s ongoing monetary supporters.
The new strategy applies to the political nominee as well as advertising around political issues but will include exemptions for things like voter registration. The company plans to show a detailed version of the policy on November 15, and it will go into effect on November 22.
And now We’re stuck between two opposites, We have Facebook saying everything goes, and Twitter saying nothing goes.
on the other hand, facebook app has tried to avoid playing judge in political arguments by declining to fact-check its political ads. That policy has earned Zuckerberg enemies in Congress, who roasted him on the decision last week, and among facebook messages employees, more than 250 of whom have signed a letter opposing the policy.
Just after Dorsey’s tweets, Zuckerberg justified the company’s handling of political speech on the company’s third-quarter earnings call. Without referring to Twitter by name, he noted that competitors like Google continued to host political ads and that broadcasters are necessary by the FCC to air them.
Zuckerberg said that political ads are an important aspect of free speech a formless theory in the context of a private company, especially for candidates and problems that receive fewer media broadcasts.
Meanwhile, Twitter’s decision might gain it praise in spite of the backlash against Facebook, some have explained the policy as intense noting that it may do little to make civil discourse better on the platform in general. Daniel Kreiss who is a professor of political communication at the University of North Carolina’s says that the advertisements aren’t the real problem. Instead, platforms should examine their policies around customized ad targeting, which encourages extremist messages.
Kreiss highlighted another new Twitter policy, to “quarantine” content from elected officials that violates Twitter’s policies, as a more moderate approach.