You're not damned if you don't. Stop hosting political ads. I guess then you're "damned" because you make less money, but I don't think that's what you meant.
Does an ad for an abortion clinic count? How about an ad asking for donations for Palestine? Or Hong Kong? Or wall construction? How about an ad that only points out that stocks have gone up, along with a picture of Donald Trump and a flag in the background?
Obviously this falls prey to the classic problem, which is that every partisan sees messages that benefit the other side, even incredibly indirectly, as insidious manipulation, while dismissing outright propaganda from their own side as “just getting the truth out”.
The FEC already has rules on what defines a political ad, including mentioning or displaying a candidate in a window before an election. There's additional distinction on how the ad was coordinated, the type of organization behind the ad etc. Those advertising politically in a federal election are included in reporting their activity to the FEC.
So if an independent org ran those three ads, only the third could be considered political for election purposes.
What about all the political ads that are not connected to federal elections? People in this thread keep throwing around "political ad" as if it is a synonym for "election ad". It isn't.
Why not bias on the side of denial if there's any doubt? The people generating such content don't need to be forbidden from generating it; but there's a difference between sharing it in communities or groups or with friends, and paying to have it inserted into the News Feeds of people who didn't ask for it.
>> Does an ad for an abortion clinic count? How about an ad asking for donations for Palestine? Or Hong Kong? Or wall construction? How about an ad that only points out that stocks have gone up, along with a picture of Donald Trump and a flag in the background?
FB has armies of content moderators and content policies to police non political speech already. Look at the controversies surrounding "no nudity/sexual imagery" > "banning/unbanning breast feeding pics" > "banning/unbanning pics of the african tribe who nurse sick goat calves back to health with human breast milk".
Its all complicated, every bit of it, and there is no reason to suggest that political content moderation is any more difficult than anything else.
FB _can_ do it, they are already doing very complex content moderation. There is nothing special about "political" speech.
> Look at the controversies surrounding "no nudity/sexual imagery" > "banning/unbanning breast feeding pics" > "banning/unbanning pics of the african tribe who nurse sick goat calves back to health with human breast milk".
That is entirely my point. This is actually a famous story -- something as objective and straightforward as banning nudity turned turned into a nightmare with tons of exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions. Politics is the most delicate, messy, complicated subject there is. Facebook obviously can come up with some policy, just like I could right now, but whatever it is, a majority of people will be pissed off.
> there is no reason to suggest that political content moderation is any more difficult than anything else.
Pretty surely it is. Everything can be politicized, or be perceived to be politicized by the other side. Even a breastfeeding image can become political in an election context. Will FB take down posts that laypeople send about candidates? Even the ban itself would become extremely contentious, political issue. That's a very messy situation that directly infringes on a bunch of rights from freedom of expression to association to basic voting rights.
