[megaman821]

Why is this a standard being uniquely applied to Facebook? There are ads for x-ray glasses in magazines. The are commercials for security products with many lies running on all the cable news networks.

I tend the think the source of the lie is the thing that should be attacked. Who has the most responsibility here: the advertiser for lying, the network for showing the lie, the ISP for delivering the content with a lie, the laptop for displaying the lie?

[threeseed]

Simple answer.

With magazines, television etc you are targeting everyone. So if you run an ad that said "Vote for me because I will build a border wall" then you will attract 30% of the population and alienate the other 70%.

With Facebook you can just target that 30% whilst guaranteeing the 70% won't be affected since they won't see the ads. That is the feature that is unique to Facebook that is causing all of the problems.

[riversflow]

Nothing is stopping you from creating facebook personalities to receive these ads is there? You have to buy a magazine to read it.

[k1e]

What problems is it causing? How does not affecting other "70%" change things?

[fzeroracer]

Let's say you have two groups of people. One group is pro-skub, the other group is anti-skub.

If you run an ad in the newspaper that says 'pro-skub people want to literally kill all anti-skubs', that is broadcasted to everyone. People outside of the target group can independently fact check it and/or apply pressure to the paper itself to remove an obviously fake and inflammatory ad.

Now let's say you run that same ad on Bookface. You target specifically the anti-skub people, and especially those that are already predisposed against those that are pro-skub. Even if your ad is obviously fake, you're contributing to the radicalization of a group which increases divisiveness. This becomes much harder to independently fact check because when you search that ad on Dooble you find results which seem to reinforce that ads message because all of these algorithms are optimizing for engagement.

[threeseed]

Because that 70% still votes:

30% (increase) + 70% (decrease) = No difference

30% (increase) + 70% (no change) = Increase

[gremlinsinc]

My right-wing grandma who's a bit nutty reads tabloids. Like that's the only magazines she reads.

Pretty sure a specific 'type' of person reads that crap. It's like Alex Jones' in print. There are probably other similar 'print' publications.

If you hit a specific magazine/publication you can target a specific demographic without hitting 'all of us'....

Edit: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agree FB needs tempered a bit. I believe though that truth doesn't need to be in ALL ads, but if it's political in nature or could affect society at large then yes it should be controlled.

[Fordec]

Why Do standards apply more to Trump than my racist grandma?

Power. The tallest weed gets the shears. If Facebook doesn't like being the tallest weed in the garden it's free to split itself up. Until then harbouring a persecution complex just makes it lose reputation. And until Facebook can operate outside off planet it's still going to have to learn to live with the people on it. And there's been a long history to read up on about the different methods humanity resorts to when it's ticked off enough with those in power and lose hope of them changing course on their own initiative.

In my country responsibility lies with the network because it's the last part of the system that isn't a dumb pipe. To tackle the source of the lie will require dropping the first Ammendment as a prerequisite. Facebook employees having nice happy unchecked good days isn't worth that.