[_Algernon_]

We do put additional editorial standards on news publications. This puts legal responsibility for the published content on the publisher.

It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo you do the obvious which is to make the advertiser name a human editor who holds legal responsibility for published ads (on behalf of the company).

Now you can sue the advertising company (eg. Google) for millions of false advertisements at once.

[jpadkins]

Can you give examples of laws that put editorial standards on publishers? I am not familiar with any (I mostly know US stuff). A quick search only returned: - Disclosure of Advertorial Content: U.S. law requires that if paid content is presented as editorial matter in a periodical, it must be clearly marked as an "advertisement". - Prohibiting Harmful Content: Laws prohibit publishing content that is obscene, libelous, or scandalous. - Copyright and Intellectual Property: Laws govern the exclusive rights of authors to their literary and artistic works, including the right to print, publish, and distribute them. - Privacy Laws: Publishers must comply with laws protecting personal data and privacy. - Online Platforms and Section 230: While not directly about publisher standards, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content, distinguishing them from publishers in this context.

I can't sue a publisher for running an ad that was libel. I sue the advertiser who created the libel.

[_Algernon_]

Here is an English translation of the Norwegian law around this topic: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2020-05-29-59 (Chapter 4 is of particular interest for this discussion)

I assumed the US had something similar, but seems I was wrong.

[JustExAWS]

Actually we don’t put any responsibilities on news publications beforehand. They can be sued after the fact for libel/slander.

[_Algernon_]

I should have said liability, it would have been more precise, but I'd argue that liability is a form of responsibility so I don't think your correction is warranted.

[etchalon]

Yes, but you can sue the organization itself.

However, our laws mean that Google, Meta, etc. are not legally responsible for the content of the ads they run. The creator of the ad is.

And it is shockingly easy to construct a legal entity that is unaccountable.

[tracker1]

You could create a law that says regional/national advertising requires a company or person be in that jurisdiction and that they must hold $$$ in bond as a guard against false claims.

This would prevent foreign ads targeting domestic users, and/or give you an organization to sue domestically. In this case, it's likely that the Israeli govt would work through a US based org, and that in court that case would likely fail for free speech rights. Though a case/org in another nation might not hold up under that nation's laws.

[etchalon]

Or you could just hold the platforms liable for the advertising they host, and leave it up to the platforms to decide how best to weigh the trade-offs between that liability and their, to date, woefully underwhelming moderation.

[tracker1]

Because I'd prefer to preserve the freedom of speech to it's fullest extent as opposed to corporate or govt censorship.

[JustExAWS]

Who has standing to sue? We already see the current President using lawsuits to allow media companies to bribe him.

[tracker1]

The injured party... in the above case, the UNRWA would sue the org paying for the ads in the target location, for example the US org paying for the ads themselves in the US.