Facebook adopts a Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads: Was it the right choice?
Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads
Attention has been brought to the authenticity of political ads on Facebook and raises the question of whether adopting a hands-off stance on political ads is ethical, and if not ethical, whether prohibiting free expression on social media goes against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
A little background on the issue: It started with a letter written by Facebook's employees that disparages Zuckerberg and his executives' decision to let politicians post any claims they wanted —even false ones — in ads on the site. It also urges the leaders of Facebook to reconsider their stance, positing that Facebook's position on political advertising is "a threat to what FB stands for".
"Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing", the employees wrote and claims that Facebook's current policy gives political corporations the power to "weaponize" Facebook's platform and target people who places utmost trust in content posted by political figures.
In addition to resistance from within, Facebook has also been facing criticism and condemnation from presidential elections, lawmakers and civil rights groups. This is largely due to what President Trump did a month ago. His campaign had begun circulating an ad for Facebook that makes false claims about former vice president Joeseph R. Biden Jr., who is running for president. When Biden's campaign had asked Facebook to remove the ad, the company had refused, claiming "ads from politicians were newsworthy and important for discourse"
In response to this, Zuckerberg reinforces his defense of the issue on premises of the rights given by the Constitution to American people: freedom of expression. “People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a 5000-word speech to students at Georgetown University.
What happens next however, is left to be seen, as every party involved in the matter stood their ground on how they believe the issue should be resolved. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat running for president, has made her position clear by buying a political ad on Facebook that falsely claimed Mr. Zuckerberg and his company supported Mr. Trump for president, challenging Zuckerberg to how far she could take it on the site. As of now, Zuckerberg has not responded in action, simply stating that Facebook’s policies would be seen positively in the long run, especially when compared with policies in countries like China, where the government suppresses online speech.
This issue is significant to our current studies in class, as it not only brings light to an essential aspect of the political campaigning: the media, and raises the question of whether or not political advertising is ethical if the information presented is misleading, but also allows us to observe a real-life scenario in which freedom of expression does not necessarily have a positive effect, which could potentially instigate the creation of a bill that prohibits misleading political campaigns.
Here's my question: Should politicians be given free rein in media advertising? And would stifling and filtering political messages on the media because they are misleading be a violation of the 1st Amendment?
I believe that politicians should not be suppressed in their online advertisements, as long as they are staying within the realm of protected free speech. By running the platform on which these ads are posted, it is Facebook's responsibility to honor the guarantee of free speech, while also preventing violations of such a right. For example, lying in ads is classified as slander, which is not protected under the first amendment. While Facebook should allow most ads to run, they need to ensure that their platform is being used in a productive way by removing false ads that are designed to intentionally harm others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that politicians should have free reign on social media and online advertising. I think it is up to said politician's discretion to determine what is appropriate or not appropriate to post. If they post something that they shouldn't, they will suffer the consequences of that action, and learn a lesson going forward.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is wrong for politicians to be able to publish false information in their ads about their opponents. However, it is very difficult to actually filter these ads to see if they are true or untrue. Zuckerberg’s hands-off stance on political ads reflects the precedent set in the Supreme Court decision of New York Times v. US which established no prior restraint, and it supports the Constitutional freedom of expression that all Americans are entitled to. However, posting libelous information about candidates could impede the democratic process by misleading voters. I think that there should be some kind of accuracy check for information posted by candidates about other candidates, because in the race to gain the presidency, people may be incentivized to say untrue and harmful things about others. Also, the public is likely to listen to what candidates say about the other candidates because they see them as figures of authority.
ReplyDeletePoliticians should be prevented from spreading lies on social media. By resorting to these underhanded tactics, and as a result of an uninformed public, they can gain a significant advantage over their opponents and tarnish their image. The effects of these actions can be seen in examples such as Hillary Clinton, whose loss can partially be attributed to negative rumors about her. However, stifling these messages would be a violation. The only real solution to this problem is create a more informed public, but that's near very unlikely.
ReplyDeleteShould politicians be given free rein in media advertising? And would stifling and filtering political messages on the media because they are misleading be a violation of the 1st Amendment?
ReplyDeleteI believe anyone that wants to advertise on the media should be given free reign over what they want to post, including politicians. Of course it is up to the politician, and Facebook to make sure what they are saying is absolutely protected, and within the protected rights of the 1st amendment.
Also, stifling and filtering political messages would be in violation of the 1st amendment, unless it is absolutely needed. Politicians have the right to say what they want, even if it is lies/misinformation that skew the public's knowledge of the political realm.
DeleteI believe that politicians should be given freedom in media advertisement. Not only does restricting the media be a violation of the first amendment, it can also affect the voter turnout. The majority of the population gain knowledge about political parties or other current events happening in the country through the media. A lot of the younger generation looks to social media, so politicians should take advantage of this type of advertisement.
ReplyDeletePoliticians should be given mostly free rein in media advertising based on the first Amendment right to freedom of the press. However, slander of other candidates should not be allowed. As a rule, if saying what the ad says publicly is protected under free speech, then it should be allowed. Politicians have the right to freedom of press and Americans are less informed and less likely to vote without ads, because those who do not watch the debates or news are likely to know nothing about either candidate, something ads could change.
ReplyDelete