Political ads are overloaded with lies and I find them impossible to watch. The problem is they are believed by people unaware or not following news closely. They quote the lies from ads as a basis for their beliefs about politicians how they will vote. It closes down useful discussion and is dividing our country!
However free speech is necessary, but both sides of issues need to be heard for any beneficial impact. Lies need to be pointed out.
Sick of news, Facebook, Twitter and google protecting politicians from information that may hurt their campaign. That is political itself! We are all being manipulated.
In my opinion Facebook needs to fact-check all political posts on their platform. Facebook is a huge social media platform and has a very large political influence on voters especially in the upcoming elections. With that being said, I think it is the job of the Facebook software engineers and developers to implement a system that does auto fact checking across all posts - political or not. In addition, they need to do this with their large platform known as Instagram as-well. Instagram is just as big as Facebook and there is just as much political speech that occurs on it — a lot of which is false.
In my opinion Facebook should fact check obvious lies from politicians who use them to try to influence an election. Most of the politicians who run these ads know that the information they are spreading is not at all true. I think Facebook should have a responsibility to protect its users from being manipulated and inundated with false information. I understand the sentiment of freedom of speech but when you own a private platform freedom of speech is not entirely relevant anymore. I think Facebook should worry more about the misinformation on their website and less on a rule that doesn’t apply to their situation.
I think Face book is platform where everyone is aloud to say their honest thoughts and opinions no matter how hateful they maybe. It's honestly terrible that the reality is people would use their freedom of speech which is a very big privilege to have in the Unites Sates of America as a citizen, to scare other people indirectly online. And, it is hard I understand for Mark Zuckerberg to be expected to figure out a way to monetize EVERYTHING that is said by politicians on face book. There has to be however some sort of mechanism to fight this problem. As a person who doesn't use Facebook or have the account it's a little hard for me to brainstorm the possibilities. But maybe Facebook can look over all the political ads before they are posted just to make sure it is nothing that can unease the public.
I think that Facebook should fact-check political ads because many people in other countries use it as their news source, fake political ads can affect the election outcomes, and alter the opinions of the viewers.
False political content on Facebook could have a serious effect on our democracy. There could be a change in who is elected solely based on lies. I agree with Aaron Sorkin when he said, “Facebook isn’t defending free speech; instead, it’s assaulting truth”. Many people use Facebook as their news platform, and trust that what they see is the truth. Some are forming their opinions of potential candidates or politicians by being manipulated into believing untrustworthy sources.
Mark Zuckerberg suggests that its the viewers' jobs to figure out if they news they see is true or not, but for places such as Myanmar, they have no way of fact-checking for themselves, as “Facebook is essentially their internet”.
Facebook is a website that is used globally and can impact the views of many people, therefore, it should be responsible for fact checking its political speech. Fact checking should occur because it can reduce the amount of false and misleading information presented in a lot of political speech, it would only allow reaiable and unbiased information to be accesed on the website, and it will allow its users to make educated decisions.
Although one could argue that the right to free speech would be violated, I believe it allows free speech to flourish. Fact checking wouldn't have any effect on right to free speech if what the political figures are saying is true. The only speech that could be pottentially censored would be inaccurate posts that falsely damage our perception of others. With this we could all be sure that what is being said is true and express our own ideas on factual statements.
Furthermore, the lies spread through unregulated speach end up causing what Aaron Sorkin describes as an asault on the truth. When a global website that is the only news source in some places falls vuctim to political lies, many people make uneducated decisions based on half truths and misunderstood information. The inpact could depend on how out of context something is taken or the ability of the publich to deferientiate bettween whats real and lies but it is ultimateley the same; damaging the opponents image is the goal.
@Camila I agree with everything you’re saying except about free speech. I don’t think fact checking would “Would allow free speech to flourish”. That just doesn’t make sense when you’re talking about censorship. Good or bad censorship is taking away freedom of speech.
Since Facebook is one of the biggest influential social media platforms around the world, they should fact-check political ads in order to avoid miseducation, bias, and false accusations.
Although it is argued that fact-checking isn't facebooks responsibility to do so, Facebook is ultimately responsible for fact-checking their ads uploaded since they gain profits from these advertisements.
Atticus does a splendid job further elaborating on my ideas by stating that: "False information has been a serious problem lately (especially with facebook,) and a voter should make decisions based on truth and facts, not misinformation that facebook is currently allowing on their website."(Atticus) This further supports my idea that bias could be created towards a certain political candidate which could cause Americans to vote for the wrong candidates.
Facebook should not fast-check posted Political Ads because it completely defeats the purpose of social media, takes away a politician's freedom of speech, and keeps the public from choosing what they want to believe.
Although people like Vanita Gupta might argue that it is Facebook should be a reliable source and that they should stop politicians from spreading false information, it is not Facebook's responsibility to find out what's true and what isn't and by fact-checking it, it would just stop Politicians from having the right of freedom of speech. Similarly, Michael from Northbrook IL stated, " Facebook is a social media website, not a news source if people want to get their news from Facebook they should fact check it no matter what. Telling someone they can't post something is only the start of limiting people's freedoms." Michael makes the clear point that it should not be demanded that Facebook fact-check because they are not a news source, they are a social media platform, a place where people have the right to express how they feel.
Facebook should be fact-checking their political content and making them known to the public because they are a major social media platform used all around the world, users might find it difficult to recognize false information, and these could potentially lead to major governmental issues in the future. Of course many would argue that freedom of speech is a right given to the people, so Facebook should be allowed to do whatever they please. This would be a false statement. Mark Zuckerburg, Facebook's chief executive, believes that Facebook was a responsibility for the company to promote freedom of speech. This is a great point to make and a great policy, however what he's defending is not qualified freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is enacted when one expresses his or her own opinions or ideas. The posts on Facebook, about Biden, were stated as facts rather than opinions, and they were lies. Lying is not promoted within freedom of speech, because there is no opinion in it. Therefore Facebook's defense on the situation is defeated by law. Ty'anna Ash (a student from Sarasota, Florida) commented that "Facebook has a lot of false information and thousands of people are quick to believe it." This reinforces the fact that it has a major impact on those who use it.
Facebook should fact-check the political ads they release because we have to have into account that many people or maybe everybody uses facebook as an informational app to see what is going on in the rest of the world and for them to believe what is actually going on facebook is accountable to post information that is reliable and trustworthy. It will be argued that facebook violates the freedom of speech but in my opinion, they aren't because whoever the politician is still can say whatever they want but it's up to Facebook if they want to publish the whole background of the speech or just parts of it and if they want to change it to make it false or leave it as how the speaker said it and have more people trust in whatever facebook has to say.
The consequences I could see Facebook's policy having on our society is them overstepping their boundaries and being to pro-active. I would be worried that they would infringe to much on our constitutional rights. I don't believe that's its Facebooks job to moniter what people post about political or non-political and it's up to the user to decide what's false information and what's valid.
I do believe it's a violation of Free-speach and I disagree with the statement that Facebook is assaulting truth. Facebook is doing anything to assault the truth, all its doing is providing a platform for its users and it's the user's responsibility to decide what they find truthful and what the don't.
Although I can't speak for other countries, I would say that in America Facebook is definitely not seen as a reliable source of public information. People have had social media long enough to know that not everything you hear on free speech platforms is truthful.
I believe Facebook should get to determine what they censor and what they don't censor as it's their own site and including government in the process could create problems and unknown bias within the company.
Ever since Facebook, the very popular social networking platform was first introduced in February of 2004, the concept of fact checking political posts has been a controversial question. However, Facebook should most definitely fact check political posts because political posts should be credible and reliable for the upcoming generations, propaganda could severely impact the government and general negative misconceptions on not only the American government, but the American people as well.
Although one might argue that Facebook fact checking political content goes against the complete meaning and principles behind “Freedom of Speech,” other potential outside factors such as defamation and inaccurate accusations could severely affect a candidate’s chance to have an impact in the upcoming elections or even his personal life, such as ruining marriages and tearing families apart.
Evelyn does a good job elaborating on my ideas by explaining that: “The information people see online is something they trust, and something that they could potentially base important life decisions on. Especially if the person in question is an influential member of our society, which means more people would be the recipients of incorrect information, they need to be fact checked” (Evelyn). This connects to my reasoning because with a negative perspective on an important political figure, it could drastically impact the outcome of said results.
Mark Zuckerberg's recent policy on political advertisement was very surprising to me. Facebook being such a large internet platform that is used by countries like Myanmar as a primal source to access internet content should moderate political speech. People aren't able to pull out the truths in political advertisements so they become trusting victims of the lies they read. Even though Mark Zuckerberg says, "even if false, were newsworthy and in the publics interest to hear and debate." you then have to fact check statements to find the truth. Facebook saying it is freedom of speech it is also an assault to the truth. Letting politicians campaign and falsely advertise freely is a risk that could affect our countries decisions like the election of a president. I think Facebook should fact check or even have a disclaimer on the side of each advertisement stating its inaccuracy.
Before reading this article, I was not aware Facebook itself had previously had these type of serious impacts around the world. After reading and knowing these effects remain possible through false advertising on Facebook, I now lean in favor of Facebook fact checking its political advertisements.
Additionally, while these responses thechnyiqually are a form of free speech, in my opinion, it also is no doubt an assault on truth. This is because as politicians, they have a duty to speak the truth to the American public and refrain from lying for personal gain.
The point that some places require on Facebook for news and as their internet brings up a very prominent point. This adds a further emphasis that Facebook should fact check its political campaigns to prevent false information from reaching those who rely on Facebook to provide news.
Right now I believe Facebook has the right to regulate their content as they please. However, if these issues continue to persist and become an epidemic with severe consequences, then it should be the Governments time to step in.
i think facebook should check political speech. My reason for this is because facebook has a lot of false information and thousands of people are quick to believe it. Facebook could have false information about political and it doesn’t need to, especially right now because elections are going on.
i think facebook should check political speech. My reason for this is because facebook has a lot of false information and thousands of people are quick to believe it. Facebook could have false information about political and it doesn’t need to, especially right now because elections are going on.
Facebook is a highly influential social media service for many people around the world; this is why its Facebook's duty to fact check political ads posted on its platform. False political information may be highly misinterpreted, not only by the people of the United States but people all over the globe, this could lead to negative perspectives on the United States democracy.
Even though, many may argue that if Facebook chooses to moderate political information it will be blatantly going against the principle of "Freedom of Speech." Facebook should at least make a hassle of reviewing and checking to see if political ads represent false information and if so, they should make it apparent.
Toby Jaffee does a good job of spotlighting that "When the ability to say whatever you want and have it be accepted without any means to challenge it is available, it produces wild systems of belief." this further supports the notion that false information can create a false perspective.
I believe fact check should be used on Facebook. I believe this because companies sometimes lie about what they are selling you. When that happens people are getting scammed. Also on Facebook people spread gossip so the fact check could check if what the person is saying is true. Lastly, politics use that as a outlet to get people to vote for them. When they do that may say what they do and could be lying.
It is important to moderate political speech because it increases the risk to our democracy and the well being of our country.
I think facebook should still allow political speech, but they should also add a disclaimer to show which parts of the speech or ad are factual. Facebook should fact check all political ads. I like Twitter's policy because it prevents false political information altogether. Facebook shouldn't remove posts, instead include a disclaimer and show which portions are correct.
@Ruben
I agree with you that Facebook should moderate political speech, especially during election seasons like these, so people don't see false information which could sway them from one side to another. At first I thought it'd be best to delete the posts/advertising as a whole if they were completely false, but I didn't think about adding a disclaimer to the post. I feel as if it'd be a little difficult for Facebook to point out all of the pieces in a post which are true, but adding a general disclaimer to anything that seems suspicious/is false is a great idea in my eyes.
Facebook shouldn't fact-check political speech because it isn't their responsibility to do so, it abolishes the right to express yourself, and it defeats the purpose of social media. Although one may argue that "developing countries, like Myanmar, Facebook essentially is the internet...and only source of information" it still isn't Facebook's responsibility to make sure everything is factual, let's not forget you voluntarily sign up for it with no cost. Graham from Greenwich High School States, "I think that it is great that Facebook tries their best to not moderate political speech. In the end it is their choice, since they are a private company that users waive their rights to."
No, I don't believe reasoned limiting of politicians' say on Facebook to be a violation of free speech. Yet neither do I see a civil responsibility to promote free expression vested in the social media company. To my knowledge, Facebook is no government-run institution: it's a service provided by the company run by Mr. Zuckerberg. It's a platform run by a company with supporters, not a government with supposed moral obligations to uphold. Sure, I admit, it's fair for people, specifically users of Facebook, to be shocked or even saddened at the sight of false media permeating on the platform. But Facebook's users, individually, aren't a voting electorate that the company must please. I don't think Facebook has done anything wrong. Rather, I view Facebook's status quo as a reflection of reality.
Facebook should fact-check political speeches and ads posted on their website so that the information they are allowing to be viewed by their daily audience is reliable, non-bias or falsely advertised by opposing platforms and trustworthy so that readers are able to gain knowledgable information.
Although the New York Times reported that Facebook said, "it would not moderate politicians' speech or fact-check their political ads because comments by political leaders, even if false, were newsworthy and in the public's interest to hear and debate," this argument fails to understand that by not fact-checking political ads/speeches, Facebook is providing its audience with false information and could not be reliable.
Facebook should fact check and notify the viewers of the inaccurate advertisements because social media platforms reach extravagant numbers of people across the world, many people are not able to locate the truth versus the lies and without fact-checking, viewers should be able to depend on reliable content. Although we as American citizens have rights such as freedom of speech, the process of false advertising places our country into a non-reliable, non-truthful government and corporation which in many ways could alter important decisions such as elections or more for the people of the USA. As Toby Jaffee said in his New York Times comment, "Facebook should moderate the spread of misinformation, especially when it comes from a platform that people are likely to take for granted." The human race believes everything they are told but if the things we are told are not correct, what is there to believe?
Facebook should fact check and educate the viewers about inaccurate political advertisements because many people are not able to tell whether the post came from an accurate source, many people follow facebook as their main or only news source, and false information can have a dangerous effect on our lives and democracy. Although Americans have the right of freedom of speech, false advertisement of politcal news can change views people may have and can effect the result of elections, people may be voting on a lie. Evangeline Brancati says in a New York Times comment, "Facebook should fact check the political posts. Social media is something that any one can see at any time. And most of the time, people, especially older people, believe whatever they see on the internet. Politicians shouldn't have such a big outlet to be able to lie with no consequences."
Facebook should fact-check and notify its app users if political content posted on their platform is incorrect because viewers aren´t always good at detecting false information on social media, false news can lead to serious consequences, and viewers should be able to be confident that the political ads they are reading are truthful. However, the first amendment tells us that we have a right to the ¨freedom of speech¨ in the United States, even when it comes to press. Yet, despite our first amendment allowing freedom of speech, there is a place where we need to draw a line when ¨freedom of speech¨ turns into the freedom of telling political lies. As Sarah said in her New York Times comment said, ¨Although restricting what politicians are able to promote might deny freedom of speech, false advertisement ´assaults the truth.´
When I heard that Facebook wouldn’t be confirming what politicians say in their ads, I started to scratch my head in confusion. Politicians have been notorious and extending the truth, so I think the last thing the public needs is to be lied to be expert liars. Most people get most of their information about anything on social media since it was pretty easy to believe everything you saw. Now, we don’t know who to trust which will result in people either using different platforms to gain information or they will straight up be lied to by political advertisements. Eventually, the American people and even people around the world will believe in things that have been forced upon them instead of willingly having faith towards something.
Now, of course I would love all true facts from platforms like Facebook. But I am uncomfortable to the idea of regulation of speech on the internet, even if it is untrue or even offensive. I think the regulation of speech can lead to more closed social circles for people who are truly extreme. I think that what would be best is for the people who use the internet to fact check someone's post when it comes up. It is not necessary for Facebook to take actual time to regulate the internet more than it has to. Of course, speech that does violate its already existing terms and conditions should still be taken down. I think Facebook should maintain status quo.
@Jeffery Austin I agree with this, as well as the fact that whoever is monetizing may be biased to certain people.
Facebook should fact-check political speech so that information is accurate and trustworthy, reliable, and not falsely advertised. When supposedly trustworthy networks are consumed with lies, it makes the entire site irrelevant. Although restricting what politicians are able to promote might deny freedom of speech, false advertisement "assaults the truth". Especially, countries such as Myanmar, as stated in the article, use facebook as a source for information, they concede to the facts. They deserve to have a reliable platform to extract information in order to make an accurate evaluation.
Facebook is one of the most widely used platforms throughout the world, it influences peoples every day and it is used as a trustworthy and honest source, therefore they should be fact-checking and filtering political ads and posts to provide reliable content to its users. Although Mark Zuckerburg argues that this would be violating freedom of speech by filtering their ads. False advertising is creating a non-honest democracy this is supported by Aaron Sorkin who says it is "assaulting the truth" by letting false ads be posted on their site. By filtering their ads Facebook would be promoting an honest democracy and reliable platform.
If you are going to allow posts of political speech on such a large platform with many daily users, you should be posting 100% true information with evidence or proof. Especially when lots of people depend on social media to keep them informed, giving out false or questionable information isn’t a good idea.
If you are going to allow posts of political speech on such a large platform with many daily users, you should be posting 100% true information with evidence or proof. Especially when lots of people depend on social media to keep them informed, giving out false or questionable information isn’t a good idea.
I believe there are things Facebook has the ability to fact check and moderate and others they cannot. As an American, I have the benefit of exposure to all sorts of media, politics, and opinions, and I have the freedom to express them. Likewise, people and political candidates should be allowed to post and create ads that lean to a certain side of politics.
That is not to say that individuals should be able to post ads to Facebook intending to spread disinformation, either. Facebook has the ability to fact check their ads and should remove those that are blatantly false. An important distinction should be made, however; politically biased content should not be treated the same as disinformation.
An ad displaying the wrong election date with the intent to manipulate peoples’ votes is easy to fact check, and subsequently take down or prevent from becoming an ad. The date for an election is indisputable; to say that the true election date is something other than what an official source (such as the government) states is not a winning argument. Otherwise, what constitutes as false is not as clear.
In the article, Trump’s 30 second video ad was said to have falsely claimed that Joe Biden committed corrupt acts. I have my own opinions, but I don’t think a video such as this should be taken down, nor should it be regarded as false with 100% certainty. It is not an indisputable fact, regardless of what evidence suggests. Therefore, Facebook must carefully consider the ad first.
Yes, it doesn’t matter what platform it’s on if somebody with a high following is spreading lies about another person it can be a crime if serious enough. It’s not a good idea for famous or high political powered people to be able to spread lies because it can affect a large amount of people, plenty of people that make “conspiracy theories” on YouTube or other places get letters that claim to sue if they take the video down because it’s damaging their business or career. Yes, people have their first amendment but it is a crime if you’re damaging their reputation blatantly and it just causes a lot of problems between people when they debate or argue on the topic because in the end, no one is right and it can lead to more serious arguments.
I think that Facebook should moderate the spread of misinformation, especially when it comes from a platform that people are likely to take for granted. When the ability to say whatever you want and have it be accepted without any means to challenge it is available, it produces wild systems of belief like the anti-vaxxer movement, which has killed people. The intentional spread of misinformation should not have a place on any platform, social media or otherwise.
I believe that Facebook should fact check the political posts. Social media is something that any one can see at any time. And most of the time, people, especially older people, believe whatever they see on the internet. Politicians shouldn't have such a big outlet to be able to lie with no consequences.
@Evangeline Brancati Yes, but everyone lies on social media all the time and it is a lot for facebook to fact check everyone
I think it is important that they don’t moderate the speech especially because it will maintain free speech. However i also think that if there is false information there should be something done about it, but ultimately it is up to the reader weather to believe it or not.
I say no, Facebook already tries so hard and have programs in place. If you put more in place it would burden all of its users. Others media sites already do this in which they down posts that aren't even inappropriate. I fear it will be like this for Facebook too. Besides politics shouldn't be decide by posts of others but by the campaigners.
Fact-checking is important. Facebook should not necessarily have to only show true content, but perhaps implement a system where the user is warned before hand wether or not something that they are being showed is true or not. False information has been a serious problem lately (especially with facebook,) and a voter should make decisions based on truth and facts, not mis information that facebook is currently allowing on their website.
I think that it is great that Facebook tries their best to not moderate political speech. In the end it is their choice, since they are a private company that users waive their rights to, but I think it is important for them to fact check or moderate as little as possible to maintain freedom of speech and opinion. It has always been the users responsibility to fact check content, wherever that content is, not Facebook in this example.
@Graham O This is a great comment, Graham! I agree that Facebook, as a private company, reserves the right to fact check as much or as little as they want. However, I also think that allowing someone to decide what is fake and what isn't could lead to a disaster. In the end, it really does fall on the user to make sure what they're reading is correct.
It is vitally important that social media sites fact check the political speech of their users. The information people see online is something they trust, and something that they could potentially base important life decisions on. Especially if the person in question is an influential member of our society, which means more people would be the recipients of incorrect information, they need to be fact checked.
@Evelyn I also think it’s incredibly important that what they let others post on Facebook is important. What’s on the app never actually stays there, if it’s important to someone it will not only be posted on other social platforms, if it’s not even correct then a huge group of people would of just got a whole set of incorrect information. Which is not only bad, could potentially cause problems with others and only cause more confusion.
I believe Facebook shouldn’t block political ads because it is up to the voters to choose how the ad they may watch affect their thought of the candidate. It’s also their first amendment right to have freedom of speech and censoring the false advertisement violates that right.
I personally think that it depends. When it comes to the leader of the country or someone that represents our whole country then I believe that political speech should be fact-checked so that we are not being misled with false information or other countries don't think less of us because one person is not being truthful. When it comes to everyday people I do not believe that speech should be fact-checked because there is still freedom of speech and it is someone's choice to believe it. In all, I really believe that when it comes to higher roles we should fact-check, but if it is everyday people then there is no need. I have this opinion because I think it is really important that we look good as a country and that we are giving the best view of us as we can.
4
I believe it is incredibly important for a social media site like Facebook or Twitter to not censor anything that goes on their site, within reasonable bounds. If they begin to moderate ads or user's posts, there is an extremely high chance of bias coming into play with their moderation. It would be better for them to leave it alone.
I do not believe Facebook should fact-check political speech because Facebook is purely a medium to spread a message. Unless it violates the terms and service of Facebook, I do not believe anything on Facebook should be censored or fact-checked because the purpose of Facebook is not to spread truthful information. Facebook was created so that people could share things or ideas with others, regardless of whether or not they are the slightest bit true. By fact-checking the information on their website, they are straying from being purely a medium of communication, which is what they have historically been. There would be nothing wrong with them choosing to fact-check speech, but it's not their responsibility, and it's not true to what they have been in the past. To stay simply a social media site that allows people to communicate ideas, it is in their best interests to refrain from fact-checking political speech
No.
No, Facebook doesn’t have to fact-check or moderate political conduct. (And they shouldn’t be allowed to either) See, if Facebook or Instagram had the ability to moderate or determine what they perceived as harsh or untrue, that, while it may have held good intentions, would simply give them the power to completely edit the politician’s words and information. If we started to allow privately owned businesses (and public ones for that matter) to decide with their own judgement if a statement is right and wrong then it gives this company the power to enact a bias into the truth.
If a company had this power they could simply overlook something false a like minded politician would say and maybe delete something truthful the opposition says if it competes with their parties agenda. This is something that nobody should stick their foot into as it always ends in either a left or right leaning opinion which is then fed to the helpless viewers and users of the site. It seems to me that because of the success of these platforms they are crossing the line of information carriers and are trying to be information editors, which was never in the job title.
Although freedom of speech states that we can express any opinion, giving deliberate lies to the public to sway them towards a certain political side is purposeful slander. This being said, filtering every single political comment may be too much.
Mark Zuckerberg himself said that not fact-checking speech is acceptable because he wants the public to debate on the truth. The problem is, most of us won’t choose to debate, we’ll just absorb the information and vote for the wrong candidate based on lies.
The issue of not fact-checking has even gone so far as to have a major candidate plead for a “false” accusation to be taken down. Zuckerberg declined knowing President Trump’s statement was “false”, opening up room for people like Ms. Warren to create fake statements about Facebook itself showing that openly allowing slander is doing more harm than good.
When comparing Twitter and Facebooks’ policies, I have to agree with Twitters take on the whole issue. In the article, it states that neither Twitter nor Facebook has allowed the removal of false comments politicians have made. The only difference is that Twitter has now banned all political ads. This, to me, seems like the better idea. While not having any untrue comments at all would be the best way to not tamper with the minds of voters, banning ads stops the spreading of lies to those that don’t follow politicians.
I think that Facebook shouldn’t fact-check political speech. The media is wrong all the time, and it’s the job of the people to choose what news to believe and what news to ignore. People should be allowed to form their own opinions and if they really want the truth, they’ll look for it. If Facebook has the power to change the content it’s viewers see without breaking one of their own policies, what’s preventing it from only showing one side of an argument or only the views of one political party? Letting someone else dictate what the people get to see or not see is censorship. Facebook shouldn’t let their content be biased and shouldn’t let certain articles be blocked from viewers.
On the other hand, I do think that this policy could have repercussions, as the article said, because it may influence the people who see these ads, and they may vote in a way in which they wouldn’t otherwise. Some people use Facebook as their only source of news. If an ad says that a candidate, say, massacred a city and poisoned the queen of England, a reader may not fact check that information and may just automatically vote for someone else, when in reality, that candidate did no such thing and may have actually been that person’s ideal candidate. This could happen on to lots of people, enough to change the results of an election drastically, and the majority of people under the jurisdiction of their new leader may end up unhappy.
i think they should because if they do check what they post for their political adds it will give people the right info on who they are and what they believe in, and with that the people can make the right choice for them
My initial reaction to this article is facebook is mainly doing this for financial gain, but they possibly also are doing this to stay out of a direct interface with the goal of the advertisements party or affiliation. My personal opinion on this issue is it's very important for media outlets including social media to monitor and not allow advertisements to say what they want if it's false. The reason I say this is because if no one is monitoring what is true and what is false, then how would we know what is legitimate. I also see how someone could argue free speech, but if that was the case then anyone could make up something false and claim it was true without consequence. So it probably best for things to be fact-checked and if false least inform the audience that it's not legitimate.
While it is easy to argue that there has been much said on FaceBook that should be filtered out, under the first amendment citizens are protected with free speech. Although people may not always agree, everyone has the right to say what's on their mind and present their opinions. People like to express what they are thinking even though it might not be 100% true, everyone reserves that right. Even with fact-checking, people are bound to mess up or offend someone in some way, so political ads should have that same right. Also, other social media platforms aren't facing this controversy, so why should FaceBook? I support Zuckerberg in his effort to make Facebook more open and free, a sharp contrast to their past tactics of censorship.
1
@Julia Grandpre Very well said, I respect you and your opinion.
Although many people think why wouldn't they. The article expresses how free speech is a strong backbone to our country even if sometimes it may be controversial and hateful. Although it is a goal for people to not be involved in things like hate speech and they should be filtered it would be a hassle for things to always be filtered and it would be a struggle for people because they will not be able to say some things they'd want to say because of restrictions
Of course, my obvious reaction is to say, "why the heck wouldn't they" however, after reading the article I understand free speech is a strong foundation of our country, even if it involves political parties purposely making up rumors and spreading them on facebook like little kids in grade school. I also understand it would be a huge undertaking for facebook to actually fact check all the political ads posted on their site. As such, I believe a solution can be found that appeases both sides of the issue. An example of one solution I can think of is having Facebook specifically mark political ads as strict opinion, much like NYtimes does with some of their more controversial topics. Thus your not fact-checking or controlling speech, while still informing the public to remain skeptical of what they read.
I don't think anyone should fact check or ban accounts over FREE SPEACH. If anyone tries to retaliate in any other way than posting a comment on the politician's post, they are unknowingly disregarding the second amendment thus making them worse than 99% of the people who use facebook.
@Ryan Moran, I think you mean the first amendment unless you consider political ads firearms.
Fact-checking, specifically, political speech should be necessary for any social media so the people reading can get an accurate representation of what is trying to be said and what is going to impact whoever is reading it. Some other things should be fact-checked depending if it impacts a majority group, but if it doesn't I don't think any other speech needs to be fact-checked.
1
Why? Why were they stunned? Shouldn't they be rooting for Facebook in this scenario. Shouldn't they support Mark’s attempt to uphold free speech? If politicians want to run fake ads then let them. People lie on Facebook all the time and are allowed to do so. Politicians should be as well. Lying is also just a social convention. The article referenced Joe Biden’s Ukraine affairs and said it was a lie that he was corrupt. Not all the facts are out. We don't know conclusively that he was or wasn’t. If Facebook censored this they would not be upholding the constitution (not that they are legally obligated to) and their moral decency. Online platforms like Facebook and Reddit should be open places for people to discuss whatever they want.
I support Mark is his effort to make Facebook more open and free, a sharp contrast to their past tactics of censorship. They claimed that this policy threatens democracy but never say how. How does a political ad that may or may not contain false info threaten our democracy? It doesn't. Claims like that do. Fear Mongering hurts our democracy. Calling our politicians for stuff that might be corrupt and illegal helps our democracy.
1
Facebook should not be able to fact check speech because Facebook is a place where people express how they truly are. Facebook is just like any other social media website, for example Instagram is a place for people to speak about what they are thinking about and Facebook is the exact same thing. If someone was doing research on a topic you would not use Facebook or any other social media for your research or to rely your information on because it is usually someone's opinion being expressed. It depends on the person if they are going to believe something someone is saying or actually look into the situation and find the true facts.
@Natalia Barriga I agree with your stance that people should be able to express who they are, but I believe the issue is more that people are lying about what other people are. People are on social media all the time and are affected by the ads on it. I think facebook should have to regulate and fact check political ads to make sure that they aren't spreading false claims about other candidates.
I agree with Vanita Gupta on the alarm of Zuckerberg's Facebook Policy. Although it is an individual's responsibility to make sure a source is correct, with the 2020 elections approaching soon, I beleive a little more action on blocking the spread of false news relating to politics across social media is needed.
As time progresses, the use of social media as an outlet for news instead of traditional media is becoming more and more prevalent. Despite Neil Chilson's comment on the policy, “that the cure to a politician’s misstatement is more speech, not to shut it down,” being true, it's important to note that many people in the U.S, including adults registered to vote do not know to fact check what they are seeing. It is very easy for those who are not particularly internet savvy to believe what ever is presented to them online is true.
This is why I believe that during particular occasions which it is in all Americans hands in determining a key factor in the United States, such as with presidential elections, that social media sites should take extra precautions that every American's opinion should be well informed.
1
No, I do not think Facebook should fact check speech because people like to express what they are thinking even though it might not be 100% true. Even thought the political ads might not be true people could learn things from that ad. I see this type of stuff happen all the time on any social media site so I am pretty good at knowing if the information is false or if it is true information. There are some times I am wrong in thinking that a meme is true and it turns out to be false. Society could have a big argument about one political ad or meme that is wrong if it is posted in a social media site. I think that people should have free speech on any social media sites as long as it is appropriate to society. Yes I do think limiting what politicians can say on social media is violating free speech because free speech means there are no guidelines in what you can say about something. You are just expression your own opinion about it. Facebook should not be a reliable source for public information because half of the stuff people post on this social media site is wrong. Yes, I do think Facebook should chose what content should be posted in their site, but I think they need to be a little more strict about it. It is causing a lot of arguments lately about what Facebook allows people to post and what they don't allow people to post. I think Twitter is making a good decision to not post politician ads because it doesn't cause any controversy between other people.
Facebook should not fact check political speech because Facebook is just a site where people can have an audience and because of our freedom of speech people can say whatever they want. Also Facebook is not a reliable source in any way you shouldn't be getting your facts from Facebook in the first place. The article talks about how Zuckerberg is trying to take side in politics and its seen as bias but he owns the website he can side with who ever he wants and post what ever he wants.
Initially I believed that Facebook should fact check its ads. However, it is the job of the consumer to question what they read. News sources everywhere are biased, and the media often puts out fake news. By saying that Facebook should only post true material, there is the danger of only telling half of a story, or only showing what some people believe to be true. And by saying that websites, companies, and people should only allow validated ads to be posted, there is the possibility of infringement on free speech. I do not agree with Trump's decision to post an ad that contained lies, however many sources constantly clickbait users and spread false information. I'll admit that I, myself, don't always fact check news I see on social media platforms, but I don't blindly believe it, either. I understand that it's risky to have false information floating around in people's heads, but if they aren't willing to fact check what they read, they aren't consuming their news in the most effective way. In the situation with Myanmar, where Facebook is one of their only news sources, it is the job of free speaking citizens to critique and expose lies in ads or posts from politicians when other people can't. The fact that people can online isn't great, but people can expose these lies and defend the truth. I respect Twitter's decision not to show political ads, and I think their policy is more effective. It doesn't deal with the subjectivity of truth, and avoids politics altogether.
1
@Samantha Rogala I agree with this. It is a reader’s choice whether to believe any ad they come across. There are multiple other in-biased sources that give out information that you can fact-check with. Although, sometimes it can be hard to determine which sources are un-biased and some people will believe anything they see.
I think that since the media especially social media is so prominent in these times and so important in elections that Facebook not fact checking could be very dangerous especially of how fast this information can get out. But in the other hand if Facebook did "fact check" then that could be unchecked power and Facebook could take advantage and only put out ads that they want to promote that are not controversial so they can get more ads and even more money. (Norwood High school, ma)
I think that since the media especially social media is so prominent in these times and so important in elections that Facebook not fact checking could be very dangerous especially of how fast this information can get out. But in the other hand if Facebook did "fact check" then that could be unchecked power and Facebook could take advantage and only put out ads that they want to promote that are not controversial so they can get more ads and even more money. (Norwood High school, ma)
Personally, I can definitely admit that I believe most political claims posted on social media, which is a very dangerous thing. It is Facebook's responsibility to do what they can in order to prevent gullible voters from accessing fake news concerning their candidates. Additionally, I don't see why proven lies are protected under 'free speech', considering the circumstances. I think it is a reach to say doing so would be protecting democracy.
Initially, I believed that facebook should not fact-check posts put out to the public by politicians, but now I feel otherwise. A majority of the public, myself included, gets a lot of their information from the internet, or specifically, social media sites like facebook. Facebook is used by millions of people, and so many people will believe what they see on the internet because they don't know any better. I think all posts and ads posted by politicians should be fact-checked so that people are not believing false information. With the spread of false information posted here and there, it will be hard to know when someone is telling the truth and people will not know what to believe. With the 2020 election coming up, I believe it is even more crucial to fact-check what politicians put out to the public so that no one is misinformed and nothing will poorly alter the election results.
1
I believe that as facebook and many other social media apps become bigger parts of our life, they should be able to filter and fact check. As these social media apps become bigger, other news stations and other companies fall and facebook becomes a bigger part of the election process and life in general. However, I believe the spread of false information should not be allowed because it interferes with the other candidates election and is against many rules of the government and facebook's terms.
1
@Jonah You support fact checking yes but who will make sure Facebook isn't just censoring what they don't want you to see? This is the reason we have the 1st amendment so that the government can't keep us from voicing our opinions. Who is to stop the government from reaching out to Facebook and offering them money in order to silence a group of people who threaten the government? It's a slippery slope. No one should have the power to silence anyone for anything. If you aren't lying but they don't like what you have to say they will change the facts. You dont think it will happen to you until it does.
1
It's the first amendment. People have the right to voice their opinion even if it's wrong. It is our job as the public to determine the facts from the fictions and determine our own opinion.
1
This is a continuous problem I have seen not only on Facebook, but all social media platforms and the news. False information can spread so widely that everyone needs to check their information before making any just claims. Facebook does contain many political ads, and it is worrisome that things can be altered so easily. I believe Facebook should fact check what ads they are posting because if they are indeed false it only creates more ignorance in people. This is not limiting free speech if something is not accurate. You can say something, but also be accurate and honest. If this continues to spread, then it will only cause more injustice in our society. It is unjust for people who want to be informed to be misinformed because a company lacks the care to check what they are posting. It should be a priority of a popular, used often, powerful, rich platform to take the time and filter what is being put online. This will be beneficial to society and the knowledge being portrayed.
1
I believe that although Facebook has been connected to misinformation and conflicts such as the ethnic cleansing to Mynamar, they should only change their terms slightly. I feel that there needs to be a line drawn when a country tries using Facebook to create ethnic cleansing on another group. If there isn't a hard line drawn by Facebook, other third world countries will keep using this outlet to misinform people about other groups of people. As well as this, Facebook should prevent any hate speech towards other people. The affects media plays in genocides and other forms of ethnic cleansing are huge. Rwanda used radio to communicate and spread hate speech against a minority group, the Nazis used radio and propaganda in order to misinform the public about Jews being awful. The government has and will continue to use social media and other forms of media to affect people in other countries.
I think that in a world where social media plays a huge role in society, it is better to be exposed to useful information, whether that be in politics or in reporting international news. People tend to believe anything they are told from authority figures, so it is important to be able to fact check what they say so we can have an accurate representation of their character. However, if facebook does not want to fact check politicians, it is their choice and the government should not be able to tell them to do otherwise.
I think that allowing political speech without a fact check causes many problems in the world. No matter what, I think that allowing political speech without a fact check causes many problems in the world. No matter what a political speech says there are always going to be people who disagree. With Mark Zuckerberg saying Facebook will not fact check shows that he and his company don't care if there is false information spreading. In my opinion, fact check needs to happen in order for the world to have a clear understanding without false information.
I believe that this may be the one of the first political issues that has gained this much backlash based off lies on facebook, I say this because as a society we have become accustomed to accepting and believing what we hear. But how can we expect a social media platform to act as a news outlet when we already understand everything we read isn't true. So I agree with facebook not taking down this ad, mainly because it is the reader's choice to believe it or not.
1
After reading this article I have come to the conclusion that while I don't like false ads, telling someone they can't write it would be violating their freedom of speech. Facebook is a social media website, not a news source, if people want to get their news from Facebook they should fact check it no matter what. Telling someone they can't post something is only the start of limiting people's freedoms. Lastly Facebook is a company and deleting political ads would make a lot of people think they're backing a specific politician. Warren initially thought this when they didn't delete a Trump campaign post, but by Facebook not deleting her post, shows that Facebook wants to remain neutral.
2
I believe that Twitter banning political ads are smart. Social media is meant to connect others, having fun, growing into a better person. I just believe that social media should not be used for politics in anyway. Politics consume our nation and the world around us and I believe that sometimes we need a break to focus on ourselves. Facebook has a ton of people and have built a major community. Them allowing politics to take their cite is just wrong to me. Facebook was made to help people connect and meet and talk with other, not to tell encourage others to about politics.
I think that Facebook should be able to make their own decisions and decide what can and can't be published. Although the politicians may be incorrect, they should still be able to say what they want to say. It is up to the people reading the articles to notice that the facts are wrong. Anyone can believe anything they want, but it is up to them to see what is accurate and inaccurate.
@Henry P I completely agree with you in that Facebook is a company and that it can make its own decisions. People who want to learn about the news need to take it upon themselves to look into the actual facts. It would also cost Facebook a lot of money to fact check all the ads which is not worth it for them because it's pointless for them to fact check.
If Mark Zuckerberg truly believes Facebook is a champion of free speech and democracy by not moderating false advertising, maybe he should take a deeper look at our First Amendment. More specifically, Freedom of Speech does NOT mean you can say anything, anywhere. I cannot run into an airport screaming, "Bomb!" and expect to be protected by the Freedom of Speech. By the same token, false advertising is another of the many exceptions to the Freedom of Speech. It is unconstitutional to spread fake news via social media outlets. So, Mr. Zuckerberg, if you insist on being the champion of free speech, then I urge to claim this throne and eliminate the fake news that, to this day, continues to infect your disgusting, dangerous, data-point-collecting social media outlet that I never plan on using.
I realize that it is Facebook’s decision whether they take down or leave political speech, but I think this is taking it too far. Many people go to Facebook for news, information, and more. If Facebook has a lot of fake news and lies that are freely posted, than it will most definitely affect people’s political decisions. It could lead to Facebook being bias about one political candidate, and lots of political ads supporting them showing up in people’s feeds. The result could be large amounts of people’s opinions being swayed by Facebook. We have seen it happen once before with Russia’s misinformation campaign.
If Facebook isn’t going to do anything, I don’t see why people won’t take legal action. There is definitely a battle that can be fought legally to stop the spread of fake news. What I hope for the future is an equal battle during the presidential election, without companies like Facebook spreading bias fake news to sway voters.
Facebook not fact checking politicians is their choice and I understand it. In America everyone has the freedom of speech so if a politician wants to put out false ads it’s not ethical but its legal. Fact checking posts is one thing but ads, ads are something that someone is paying to put out so they should have to freedom to express whatever they want. Since Facebook is an American company it’s reasonable for it to have ideals like free expression. I think every person should fact check for themselves if they really care but again it’s their choice just like its Facebook’s choice to not fact check. That would probably require them to hire more people specifically to fact check and they don’t want to add that expense.
One of the questions Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez askes Mr. Zuckerberg was if someone could "pay to target predominantly black zipcodes and advertise them the incorrect election date" and not have their advertisement taken down or fact checked. Although Mr. Zuckerberg said no, he seemed to be hedging on an exact answer to her question when she gave another similar example. So yes, I think Facebook has a duty to fact check there ads. I know that it isn't a perfect world and people are very fearful of a 1984 like "surveillance state" (and that is not what I am advocating for) but I think that ads like this undermine our democracy because Facebook is some peoples only source of news.
@Lauren
If Facebook is some peoples' only source of news, then those people probably shouldn't be voting.
8
I believe all political ads must be fact-checked. Facebook is promoting the spread of lies by not stopping them. Oftentimes, people believe whatever they see on the web; Facebook is deliberately allowing people to believe in lies. The billions of people have the right to know what is going on in this world especially in a political aspect as our country is coming close to the 2020 election. We must have access to the truth.
I think that it is fair that Facebook is taking a more hands-off approach. I think it would be ideal for politicians to be fact-checked on platforms like Facebook, but I think that people should seek their political information on other, more reliable platforms. It may be a good idea Facebook to not permit for political advertisement at all because people should be looking to reliable sources to get more accurate political information instead of social media ads.
Before reading the article, I thought it was an interesting concept to not fact check the posts because then we could see what politicians actually know their facts and who doesn't. But after reading this article it made me realize that nobody could be fully educated on every subject. So, if there is non accurate information going into a very popular social media source, it could be really easy to just assume that the poster knows more about that subject than I do, and potentially see it as correct.
While I of course feel that the publication of false things on social media platforms shouldn't occur, I don't feel that it is Facebook's duty to be fact-checking. This would require a lot of manpower and money for a business, which I think isn't necessary since it isn't Facebook that's publishing the material--it's the people making the advertisements that are publishing the false information, and facebook is just the medium. With that being said, I think it's unreasonable to compare NBS to Facebook since NBC is actually publishing the material--not Facebook. Also, political ads are usually subjective/biased, so the "fact-checking" could get subjective and even more political, so it seems unreasonable that the fact-checking would stay unbiased. Furthermore, it should be monitored by someone else (a government agency, a nonpartisan private organization, or something like that so the people posting the false material are still held accountable. Also, where would the fact-checking end on Facebook if it were started? There would be no clear line for what needs to be fact-checked and what doesn't, which would get to be too big of a responsibility for a company whose main focus is not fact-checking. After all, they aren't a database. They're a social media platform.
@Charlie They are a database. They know everything about us. They have data points on all of us. Facebook is the source of all evil in this world. They probably caused global warming.
At first, I believed that because of the freedom of speech, everyone has the right to advertise whatever they want on Facebook without being fact-checked. Now, I think that ads should be regulated because i realized that when people see formal advertisements, they assume them to be true. However, informal posts should not be regulated because people aren't paying to reach a target audience.
I believe Facebook should fact-check because citizens shouldn't be learning and spreading false information that they learn off of social media. Also, since social media may be one of the only places that people check to stay up to date on politics, the information they are reading should be true. I understand the argument of not fact-checking since people should be able to see politicians for who they are, including flaws, but facts are more valuable.
I think that ads should be fact checked by facebook, but not posts. False advertisement should not be tolerated, but free speech shouldn't be limited.
If we accept that the goal of free speech is to contribute to the "marketplace of ideas," then what we seek is truth. Freedom of speech is not freedom of lies. It is not unreasonable for Facebook to choose to censor free speech only to seek truth. In fact, I would argue that it is Facebook's responsibility to do so, although that's just based on personal beliefs. I very much appreciate Twitter's new policy. I think that it is smart to assume that political ads work in complicated, biased ways, and perhaps removing them altogether lowers the risk. I do believe this responsibility is on the social media company rather than the government, although the government could create guidance without strict enforcement.
I feel as if the point of Social Media is not to strengthen the divide between two main conflicting viewpoints, but rather be a common ground for political parties to come together without conflict. But this is in an ideal world. With the drastic divide that exists, it would be nearly impossible to bridge this gap. Politics are a lot of the time based on opinion, so it would be nearly impossible to constantly fact check a politician's profile. Also, Zuckerburg is allowing this without his biased opinion, even after he was attacked by someone assuming that he was biased and didn't take it down. Zuckerburg is trying to preserve not only unbiased political freedom but create news that will be studied years from now.
I think that this situation is really hard because you do want people to know the truth. However, there is a difference between news networks fact checking and social media fact checking. Social media, the users are publishing the information, whereas the news companies themselves are publishing the information. Therefore, I don't think it is the responsibility of social media to fact check what other people are saying.
If this was a perfect world, I would want all political ads to be fact checked. I think that the public deserves to know the truth in most situations. However, my inner world is very different from the world we live in right now.
Facebook and other media companies have had a long history of bias for or against certain groups. The bias in all people changes how we view things. How we view the world. That is why I don’t want Facebook to fact check political ads. It’s because I don’t trust them to do so objectively and fairly.
In recent times the growing tensions between politicians and affiliates has grown enormous. This divide obviously shows two sides, two armies that see the world very differently. A fact to one group may seem correct but to the other it is false. Facts used to be the definitive piece of information that ended an argument but now people can see them through different lenses and come to distinctive conclusions.
As difficult as it may be for us to admit it, we do not know the truth. We like to think that we do. That we have figured out almost everything, and we know exactly what we are ignorant of. The reality of it is that we know very little, and a lot of what we think is true is false.
We know that we are wrong about the truth by looking at the past. In Ancient Times, the Romans were confident that the Sun was pulled by a chariot. In Medieval Times, the Catholic Church was confident that the Earth was the center of the universe. In the 15th century, people were confident that the world was flat. After World War 1, people were confident that there would never again be a major war between world powers.
In the face of so many societies that believed they had found the real truth, how can we say that we know exactly what is true and what is not. Galileo, Germ Theory, Genetics, all were considered to be complete falsehoods before they were accepted as self-evident.
We cannot allow scientific or political progress to be stifled by what is currently accepted as truth. Some of our commonly accepted ideas are wrong and we need to be able to look at them and judge them by their own merit. Who knows, maybe the flat-earthers are actually right. Or maybe democracy isn’t the best form of government, instead a techno-centric AI monarchy is. If we allow giant corporations to decide for us what is true and what isn't, then we will surely never progress as a society again.
Facebook and other social media sites should fact-check politicians’ ads and other political speech like traditional media companies such as CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. Social media and online news networks are where a large majority of people get their news and information to form opinions on politicians. Pushing false statements onto these sites misinform voters, leaving them confused and without a solid opinion. In addition, people don’t always check to see if what they read is true. The news is meant to inform us, not to feed us lies about what politicians did or didn’t do to boost other politicians.
The United States was founded on the principle of free speech. Yes, politicians should be allowed to say whatever they want but in the long run, do you want a politician who spreads lies about competition? For example, “The Trump campaign released a 30-second video ad that falsely claimed Mr. Biden committed corrupt acts in Ukraine.” Trump released false video targeting Biden in an attempt to justify his own negative actions. Some media outlets aired this video while others did not to protect the public from false content. Trump wrongly used free speech to boost his campaign and misinform the public, however, it opened the public’s eyes to his low morals.
@Grace Kromke I agree that Facebook should fact check their ads to avoid lies being spread. Facebook is allowing all sorts of fake news to be spread by not fact checking political speech. My interpretation of the first amendment is like yours, that ads like those aren’t included as a right of free speech. Fake news like that of the Russians in the last election is political unfairness, and all of the people that use Facebook as their source of news deserve to get the truth.
Revised Comment
After reading the article, my opinion has not changed; in fact my belief has been strengthened. I believe that any facebook should fact-check its political content, as informed decisions based on political speech is integral to American society. We need to hear the truth, because informed decisions cannot be made without the truth. Informed decisions are what we base our entire (American) political system off of. We decide the leaders of our country based off of informed decisions, and we can’t make those with falsehoods floating around unchecked.
Now, about Mr. Zuckerberg and his defense speech. While I can respect his attempt to use examples from history to justify his viewpoint, I don’t think that they quite back him up as much as he thinks they do, especially his points about MLK and Frederick Douglass. That is all.
I do not believe Facebook should fact-check political speech because Facebook is purely a medium to spread a message. Unless it violates the terms and service of Facebook, I do not believe anything on Facebook should be censored or fact-checked because the purpose of Facebook is not to spread truthful information. Facebook was created so that people could share things or ideas with others, regardless of whether or not they are the slightest bit true. By fact-checking the information on their website, they are straying from being purely a medium of communication, which is what they have historically been. There would be nothing wrong with them choosing to fact-check speech, but it's not their responsibility, and it's not true to what they have been in the past. To stay simply a social media site that allows people to communicate ideas, it is in their best interests to refrain from fact-checking political speech
I think that the information politicians are spreading on social media should be fact checked. I understand not taking down a post with someone’s opinion, but the posts that are spread as factual should be checked and taken down if the information is false.
If networks won’t show the ad because it has been proven that the information it is spreading is false then social media shouldn’t show it either. People who see these ads believe that the information that they are spreading is true. So if Facebook is allowing false information onto their site they are providing their users with false facts, which is not fair to the individuals using Facebook.
@Abigail Bowles I respectfully disagree with you. If social media apps such as Facebook were to fact-check political ads, it would take away one of our natural rights. The sad truth is, we live in a world where this sort of propaganda has become normal for us, and it leaves a big question mark in our heads with whether or not who to believe. You mentioned that Facebook is providing their uses with false facts. I feel as though they are doing the opposite. Facebook provides the platform for these news outlets to spread this information, but they have absolutely no say in what these news outlets post, therefore you can not punish Facebook
CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg has stated that he does not want to take away the civil rights of his users. I agree with him, although you do not. I respect your argument. But, if we were to sensor what ads go on social media, doesn't that make us sound more like a Communist nation than a republic. Sure, fact-checking ads sounds like a good idea, but then again, that infringes on part of the First Amendment, which pretty much characterizes who we are as a nation: Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.
Facebook should be fact checking political ads. The key word there is ads. There is no way they can censor normal speech, nor should they. However, paid content should be true. The spread of misinformation can not be allowed. I am not swayed by fake news and I am good at fact checking things I read, but many people aren’t or just don’t even attempt to fact check. Whether facebook likes it or not, they have become a major supplier of news. For that reason, ads should be regulated to make sure that what they claim and say is factual. In the article, Zuckerberg is quoted as saying he “stands for free speech.” To that I respond that regulating ads to make sure they are true is in no way a violation of free speech. If I want to make posts about pizzagate I can do that, but Facebook shouldn’t allow me to buy ads to spread a debunked conspiracy theory. There is a difference between normal speech and paid promotional speech. Allowing lies to be spread is dangerous. A democracy can only thrive in a truthful environment.
I personally do not care in the slightest. I don’t like Facebook, I don’t have Facebook, I don’t want Facebook. Facebook is the social media for older generations, I would care much more if it was about Twitter, (it says that twitter is doing the same thing, but this is about Facebook) because I like twitter.
Lately people have learned not to take Facebook too seriously lately, because of multiple things they have done. Right now, I am pretty sure that the only people that take it to heart are older people, certain news stations, and anti-vax parents.
I think that there is a lot of fake news that is reaching our social media from both political parties and it is hard to see what is fake and what is not. In this respect, many would agree that policing political speech would be a good idea just to keep the facts factual. On the other hand though free speech is a right that our country was built on and it is one of our best qualities as a country. If we were to police political speech online wouldn’t that be infringing on the free speech that our country takes pride in? I think it would. Not only does it limit people's right to free speech but it also limits people’s ability to have a choice of what news sources they want to listen to or compare other news sources to.
@Aiden Free speech is a core value of the United States, that is correct. However policing political ads is not infringing upon that at all. People are free to post whatever they want, but an ad is very different. An ad is something you pay for so that it can reach a wider audience, and those should be checked to make sure they are true. Facebook admitted it was used to spread misinformation that lead to violence in Myanmar. Under no circumstances is that justifiable. Democracy rests on truth and when we lose the ability to know what is real and what is not, democracy will crumble.
To those who are constantly updating themselves on the 2016 election and its aftermath, it is clear to see that Facebook should be monitoring what is being put out on their site. There have been numerous reports and statistics that the way Trump won the 2016 election was through fake news. Vladimir Putin being the very intelligent person he is, knows that those aged 65 and up and conservatives are 7 times more likely to believe fake news than those aged 18 to 28. So knowing that, he targeted fake news towards that demographic in favor of Trump or in expense of Trump's opponents. Since the fake news was not monitored by Facebook, people willingly believe what they saw because ‘you can trust everything on the internet.’ Yes we should value free speech, but this being a large political weapon, it needs to be monitored so in the 2020 election, we don’t have outside countries interfering with the election and our democratic system for personal gain ever again.
Facebook does not have the responsibility to fact check political speech. It as a private company has every right to control, or not control, what is on its platform. If Facebook wants to promote free speech in its purest form, it has every right to do so. But should it? If Facebook maintains its unfiltered content, this still could cause the spread of misinformation. With the millions of people that use Facebook as a news source the Facebook at least has the responsibility to clearly state that anything on its site could be fake. On the other hand, Facebook could begin censoring and filtering everything that was posted on its site like a traditional news source. Although taking away some freedom, this would increase Facebook’s reliability and trustworthiness. But Facebook isn’t a traditional news source. It is a platform on which billions of people independently share information. This kind of censoring, while not objectively bad, would change the platform completely. So should they make this change? I don’t think so. But that is only my opinion; Facebook is free to do whatever it chooses. We as the consumers must see these choices and treat Facebook accordingly - deciding for ourselves if we trust them.
1
@Joshua V
I agree with your opinion on this article. Many comments I have seen on this article are complete opposite, saying that Facebook must fact-check their posts so users do not receieve any misinformation. This would force facebook to limit freedom of speech and others to be unable to fact-check posts themselves and become more aware of what is going on. I believe it is very important for everyone to do their own research and find their own opinions, which would be impossible if Facebook were to take many posts down taking away freedom of speech and choice.
I think that instead of facebook deciding whether or not they want their information fact checked, it should be up to the people that are using facebook. It is their freedom of speech if they choose to discuss the topic online and it is their decision whether or not to believe if the information is fact or fiction. I believe this is the way to go because it opens up people's decisions. The fight for free expression should be available to anybody that cares to participate. If there is someone who only listens to facts and refuses to participate in sharing opinions on fake news, that should be their decision that they can change by the toggle of a button.
Freedom of speech is a very important right to have, however, there are times when that right should be monitored more closely, to protect those listening from accepting misinformation as fact. Social media and news sources that don’t regulate the factualness of posts are already difficult to trust as they are, so when that freedom is taken advantage of on sites that do not regulate what is posted, such as Facebook, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people could become influenced by what they assume is fact. Sites and news sources like these should begin checking posts for truthfulness and factuality to slow the spread of misinformation that could negatively affect the lives around us.
Although the right to free speech is a valued ideal in America, it should not come before people’s safety. Facebook spreads information to billions of people and sways many of those people’s opinions and decisions when it comes to politics. It is true that people should be wary and check the accuracy of what they see online, but it is also true that with the massive amounts of information accessible to us, it becomes difficult to determine what is true and what is not. Politicians should be able to voice their opinions, but they should not get away with promoting flat-out lies that could jeopardize our democracy. False information on politicians can easily lead to unwarranted elections and ultimately weaken our democracy and the ideals we stand for. Facebook needs to understand that although people should be fact-checking on their own, most are not, and this needs to be taken into account when addressing this issue. If Facebook has the power to fact-check, they should do it. And with Twitter now adding this policy, it becomes much more apparent that Facebook could easily do the same. Free speech is important, but so is our country’s well-being, and there needs to be limits on the messages that are being spread to billions.
Personally, I think that Facebook should fact check political speech. It is our right as citizens to not be fed propaganda by the government, and letting politicians go unchecked is setting us up for exactly that. While free speech is protected by the constitution, that does not constitute intentionally spreading misinformation just because it’s allowed. As the article states, Zuckerburg tried to use the constitution, Frederick Douglass, and MLK jr to justify is standpoint on free speech. In a response on twitter, I think that MLK’s daughter encapsulated the issue very well, stating that disinformation from politicians “set the atmosphere for [her father’s] assassination.” People with authority have a responsibility to tell those under them the truth, and if politicians are allowed to say whatever they want without considering the consequences, issues will arise, such as the credibility of the government and a lack of trust in authority in general.
7.53 billion. That’s how many people are walking on our planet today. Of that 7.53 billion, 3.5 billion use social media on a daily basis. Whether Snapchat, Instagram, or Facebook, today's society has evolved online. On average a person spends 3 hours a day on feed that is constantly updating, within those 3 hours over ½ the facts you find on these sites-are fake news. Facebook has made the bold decision to no longer fact check the political statements posted, whether it’s visual or a video. I strongly disagree with this because the world has come to believe so much fake news put out by the world already, that we need a concrete platform that can be trusted to spread the right news. If a political leader needs to spread false news to gain popular vote, should they really be voted in? To know the real facts, is to know the real world. As the world progresses, the up and coming generations need to be put on the right path. That path as of right now is covered by fake news and hiding the real world. What’s next, are we going to start telling our kids the sky is purple? Where does this string of fake news end? What will the world let it get to, before we’re forced to stop it? But will it be too late?
After understanding and comprehending both sides of the argument I think that Facebook should, in fact, question some of the political speech that is presented on this platform. I say this because there are about two billion people accessing Facebook everyday and for there to be false information presented in front of all of these people, letting them form their own opinions, things can go downhill and get violent quickly. In an article by Andrew Marantz he sheds light on the impact political extremists have on reality and how behind a screen something can easily be misinterpreted and misconstrued causing tragedies like the massacres in Pittsburgh and in mosques in New Zealand. A trusted political official using a “but he/she did this and it was worse” approach in order to elevate themselves, and essentially defame their fellow candidates on a platform that reaches so many, shouldn’t be supported or tolerated.
Facebook is a company that allows billions across the world to post anything from political news, to food recipes, to sharing what you did over the weekend. Recently, Facebook has made a statement saying that they will not fact check political posts. Such as political ads, political speeches, and many other political posts even if everything they say is completely false. Facebook's statement to not moderate political leaders' ads or speeches will allow for more propaganda and discrimination on its platform. I believe that any political ad or speech posted on Facebook should be fact checked. There are so many sources out there already spewing out false evidence and statements to create fear or hatred towards certain communities, other political leaders, etc. With all this "fake news" we need more platforms that will help to put the truth out into the world. Political leaders shouldn't need false information to gain more support from their "followers". They should give the concrete facts and let the people decide.
The private company facebook lets hundreds of millions of people from all over the world to share thoughts, plans, ideas, pictures, etc. It was created as a way to spread information and in this case, either for good or bad, it is working well. Ethically, Facebook does not have to remove untruthful content, like Trump’s video that attempts to make Joe Biden out as someone who has done things in Ukraine described as, “corrupt.” But just out of pure humanity and honesty, should Facebook contribute to hurting and corrupting a person's reputation? I don’t agree with their rule of allowing political agitators to spread lies and rumors, but they don’t owe anything to their users at all. This is Zuckerman’s company and he has the ability to use his platform as he wishes. He is positive that he is in the right so much so that he uses problems from history and some of the most powerful people of past times like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the First Amendment, and even the Vietnam war to protect his claim from corruption. This does support his own idea of freedom of speech and that Facebook is almost like the police of the media. Facebook believes they are the branch to the outside world and let other countries, like Myanmar, to interact and communicate with anyone else they want. Facebook does not have a reason to spread truth and not censoring this single video allows people to dig deeper and more in depth with current problems in the media.
I have always believed that fact checking anything I find online is important, though I do know that there are many people who don't fact check whatsoever and subsequently believe everything they read. I think we all know that discovering just one thing about a person could forever sway your opinion, true or not, and seeing a fake political ad could change someone's vote entirely. I do believe that Facebook's decision to not censor lies in political ads is a mistake, many people rely solely on social media in order to stay up to date on political news, and some of those people will 100% believe everything they read. I think that Facebook simply wants the money and power they gain from the ads. A company as large and powerful as Facebook has a responsibility to its users to filter misleading and false information.
Facebook is a media site, not a news site, so is it fair to treat it as such? The issue is people are saying Facebook isn’t doing enough to counter fake news and ads but is that their responsibility? I think we are blinded by how big Facebook is, so we treat it as a credible news site, but it’s not. Facebook is a business and it has a creator with his own political views. Zuckerburg believes in the original American ideal of free speech, he sees this issue as bigger than just right now in time. Bigger than politics. Bigger than ads. Facebook is open to the public and the truth about the public is that it’s full of liars. It’s up to us, the other members of the public, to fact check these politicians just as we should off the internet. We need a society-wide change in stop believing everything we read. Politicians lie, theyŕe the original liars and manipulators of history, so why are people believing every tweet, add, and speech they put out into the world? We need to stop putting the responsibility on Facebook and start putting it on ourselves to think before we believe.
Social media statistically has about 3.499 billion users, divided through apps like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, etc. One of the most important apps with about 2.8 billion people is Facebook. Facebook is one of the best places to go online to receive a general opinion from most people. I say this because if you scroll through Facebook's feed you will see many political arguments and false accusations. This is where fact-checking could come in handy. There was one campaign in particular that was incorrect and Facebook refused to take it down. This was when the Trump campaign released a 30-second video ad that falsely claimed Mr.Biden committed corrupt acts in Ukraine, making him lose many followers and fans. When this happened it started many discussions on how hands off Facebook was with the political speech. If Facebook could change its rules that they abide by and start fact-checking they can save many people from false accusations that could ruin their career. This should be a major topic over all of social media - these 2.8 billion people on Facebook alone need to be made aware.
Many people these days use social media as a form of political information without thinking that the information they read could not be entirely true. Facebook gives so many people a platform to spread all sorts of content and opinions, but there comes a point when showing “challenging” ideas becomes spreading flat out lies to the public - it becomes using a popular platform like Facebook to manipulate people for profit. There has to be a line between free speech and purposely spreading false information. Not checking the facts of posted content will only set us back as a society because politics will become who can tell the most convincing lies rather than who is the best candidate.
Facebook should fact check political speech. Over 2 million people use Facebook. According to Pew research center, “Around 7 in 10 U.S. adults (69%) use Facebook.” That means there is a great chance 69% of the eligible voters can view false information and vote according to lies, leading to dangerous effects on our lives and democracy. Personally, when I glance through Facebook’s political speech content, more than half the time I believe what I see. Someone could infer that as ignorance, however I always thought a social media site with such a large amount of users would fact check the political speech posted. In this day and age our lives are sadly based around social media. So, important people, like politicians should take into consideration their impact on social media. They can’t complain if their speech was fact checked if they lied in the first place. It is not a violation of freedom of speech. It is simply doing the right thing by giving the world the truth.
I believe that people who use social sites such as Facebook have a right to speak their minds and say whatever they would like to, but I also believe that there is a line between messages that are appropriate to put out and messages that should just be kept in the drafts. Facebook, like Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, is a social site used to circulate different types of media and news. It is considered the largest social networking site used globally, meaning that there are millions upon millions of people, young and old, utilizing it as a source for media. The controversy in not monitoring the political information being put out to all of these people is that it can affect their opinions and their actions. This is dangerous, especially concerning the topic of politics and government, because it can sway the decisions being made. In addressing this issue, Zuckerburg used the Constitution to defend his decision to not police the accurate or inaccurate political information being put out on Facebook, but the problem with this is that it is the 21st century; we are not living in the 1700s anymore. The false political information being allowed out is, in a way, just another form of propaganda and the negative effects of propaganda can clearly be seen throughout history during events such as World War I and the Cold War. Facebook is a very powerful company and it definitely has the power to prevent the advertisement of false information so, why not?
Social media is a hot pot: you put in what you want and out comes anything and everything related to it. On Facebook this will include false news and politicians slandering each other. Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims that Facebook is a champion of free speech but does not recognize the hypocrisy of allowing fake news to run rampant on this platform next to news giants such as ABC News and The Washington Post. Zuckerberg comparing fact checking to “controlling and censoring speech in China” is a poor example to say the least. China is notorious for its censorship, going as far as to hide news or lie altogether. Facebook is no different with its lack of fact checking; now people may make up news or spread a lie that benefits only the ignorant. Free speech may allow people to say what they please, but that does not mean it will not have an effect. The hate groups and hate speech is it’s own cesspool of toxicity that toes the line of harassment and free speech. These groups may spread lies or fake news but giants such as Twitter and Instagram will fact check anything to keep the toxicity from spreading. Zuckerberg claiming freedom of speech to allow for a lenient reign over the users on Facebook is irresponsibility masked as a Constitutional right.
Initially when posed with this question of limiting public content on Facebook, I was compelled to immediately argue for the undeniable right to free speech Americans are supposed to have. But with the current circumstances in consideration I find it difficult to compare the free speech of newspapers and soapboxes in 1789 to modern day global scale, instant communications. There is a much larger impact nowadays because any message can be viewed by the masses within seconds. With a constant influx of information at our fingertips it becomes difficult to decipher whether what we read is reliable or not. It is unfair for Facebook to expect their viewers to filter what politicians are saying, especially if Facebook has the power to fact check. As Twitter recently implemented a new policy against political advertisements, it further brings to light that Facebook is definitely capable of doing this too, but they care more about the money than the people’s well being. Neglecting to regulate facts vs opinions only brings harm to American ideals and democracy as a whole. Giving too much power to the megaphones with the money and concealing the real voices of the country is not what we stand for.
2
@M. Krous I agree with what you are saying but when it comes down to it Facebook is not about the wellness of the people it is literally all about the money. Facebook was created as a way for Mark Zuckerberg to make money and he ended up making millions and gathering millions of people who use what he created. Zuckerberg should do his part and inform the people using his site that the information on it is not always reliable but other than that he didn't create a website so people would have a place to go for reliable information he created the site for money and the sites purpose is to broadcast/reach a wider audience than the people around you.
Facebook is a private company that allows billions all over the world to share ideas, thoughts, pictures, and videos. It was created to spread information and in this case, whether good or bad, it is working efficiently. Ethically, Facebook is not entitled to remove false content, like Trump’s video that attempts to place Mr. Biden as someone has “committed corrupt acts in Ukraine.” But morally, should Facebook contribute to tainting someone’s reputation? I don’t agree with their sneaky tactics of allowing demagogues to spread lies, but they don’t owe their users anything. This is Zuckerman’s company and he is free to use his platform as he sees fit. He is so sure that he is in the right, he uses historical evidence and powerful figures such as “Frederick Douglass, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Vietnam War and the First Amendment,” to defend his claim. This does accurately support his idea of freedom of speech and that Facebook has to be the police of social media. With that said, they are the branch to the outside world and allow countries, like Myanmar, to interact and communicate. Facebook does not have an obligation to spread the truth and not censoring this allows for more in-depth research of readers.
I believe that although it is unfair for politicians to spread false information, it is more unfair to limit their rights of free speech and fair use of media. I agree with Facebook's decision to avoid fact checking and editing of politicians because it is important that people do their own research, and decide for themselves what is true and false. Its difficult and questionable for a private company to determine what facts are real and what are fake because many issues are opinion based. If you give the right to a private company to edit the news on their site, there is no telling how much they can filter, and how unbiased they will be. While propaganda is not the most moral way of communicating it is also not prohibited by the constitution however limiting a person's right to free speech is. It's important that as generations continue to age and rely more on social media that they remember to do research behind the things they read to formulate their own opinions.
1
I think Social media is the new era of all news, so because of that, there should be a distinct difference between what is considered free speech and what is news. Students in all schools from elementary to college, use social media as a part of their every day academic agenda and we students use social media to fact check our assignments. It gets to the point where should we believe everything we read? How will we ever know what are true facts and what was put out there to dilute our attention elsewhere? The heads of all social media outlets need to be aware that this is now not just to post about your family’s achievements and old photos, it has become a political playground and a battlefield for facts and lies to pollute. There is no longer room for funny memes and sharing about your family vacations as long as there is no regulation on political fact-checking. I do believe that if they create a difference between free speech and news, news being strictly factual or fact-checked, and free speech will just be free speech. Because of the divide for our news outlets, that would eliminate the issue of “fake news” that everyone is so worried about today. And to all social media outlets, wake up. You are the new news stations, you hold the floor. It is now a huge responsibility on all of your behalfs to manage what your systems put out, because in the event that something becomes violent, then what? You’ll try better next time? It won’t happen again?
Because Facebook is one of the most vital and basic principles in presenting information in our modern world, they should be mandated to regulate content presented by politicians, being that their words bear the most meaning in society. If the information politicians are spewing into possible voters heads is false, how will this country ever learn to thrive? People have come to believe whatever they read on the internet is true, especially if it's coming from someone with even a fragment of credibility. If Facebook does not fact-check politicians, the very reason people support and vote for certain candidates could be a complete lie. Without this reliability that current and future voters can depend on, we might as well pick our president based on who has the prettiest hair, but who knows, that's probably a lie too. Today's world needs a president that they can trust, and if we can't even trust the information we're being given, will we ever know the honest truth?
Based on the information provided by this article, Facebook should fact-check political ads. For some Facebook is a platform in which people receive their news and information. It is important now than ever to censor false propaganda and fake news. Lets say for example in a rural community the oil and gas industry creates a facebook ad that claims that fracking has zero environmental impacts, and creates major economic benefits. Without fact-checking, there are people who (respectfully) are less educated than the rest of society and may become susceptible to the dangers of false propaganda and offer to sell their land to the fracking company destroying their ecosystems and creating short term economic benefits. Bringing this back to political agents it is essential that well-established platforms in which people are seeking information from do fact check everything. I understand that this may seem to violate freedom of speech, but ethically validity is far more important than contrived facts.
Facebook is a platform. It allows anybody to post images or messages on its website. Facebook should not fact-check politicians. In theory, it is a fantastic idea. Everyone wants the prevention of misinformation on the internet but this is not realistic. For this to work, there needs to be someone who trains these people. The people limiting politicians on facebook will be biased. They could end up limiting one politician's free speech. Because individuals are all biased, facebook cannot accurately limit misinformation so they should allow all speech to be allowed. This will allow each politician to express their opinions without the fear of being censored.
@Ben P I agree with your ideas. I think that Facebook should not have to fact check as they are the social media platform, not a publisher. It is up to the politicians to be truthful and the readers to decide whether or not this information is valid. It is not Facebook's responsibility to fact check as they would then have to fact check all of their user's comments and that would be ridiculous.
Facebook's decision to keep their hands off of the situation I think is a good idea for them as a company. Except as a worldwide leader in information they can be seen equal to google for some situations. In the idea that they are able to influence people on a global scale with some regions only having access to facebook from information. Personally I think that they should be allowed to make their own decision because we should not bring a democratic process into a business that is directed by a private citizen.
This dates back to the case of NY Times vs Sullivan where the person who posted a comment had to post a falsified comment and know it was falsified for it to be a violation. If someone was to post a comment and not know that it was falsified, then the comment should not be pursued as falsified and that person who posted it should not be forced to be subject to a violation. These comments should be kept up though because of our freedom of speech policies and rights, and should only be taken down if whoever put it up is totally falsifying evidence and clearly has pushed a false agenda out. An arbitrator so neither Facebook nor the Government should determine if that agenda the person published is at all intentionally factual or falsified.
I disagree with Facebook's decision not to fact-check political speech. Like many others, I believe that this allows, if not welcomes, politicians to spread false information. Especially for paid ads that are being pushed to the public, many people will take it word for word. Now whether that is Facebook's fault or the fault of the individual is up to debate. But I still believe that such a large company also holds an even greater responsibility to filter harmful and incorrect information.
Social media networks should have 100% control over the ads that are played on their platforms. If someone came into your family business and started putting up posters promoting their company, you would have every right to take that poster down. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, has every right to protect the integrity of his company by stopping the spread of incorrect advertisements. Both the 2016 US Presidential Election and Britain's Brexit vote was significantly influenced by false advertisements on Facebook. Social media networks can decline any ads that they don't want on their website, regardless of who pays for the ad.
As a kid, I always grew up hearing from my mom, "don't trust everything you read on the internet." So now when reading online, I take every word with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, not everyone on the internet takes the same contingencies, and a fake political ad can be the difference between who they vote for in the upcoming 2020 election. Although I understand why Facebook believes that fake ads can benefit its audience, I believe that it applies to the small group of people who choose to fact check the ad. On the other hand, those who choose to believe anything they see on the internet, it can cause them to create an opinion based off of false facts or "fake news". Overall I see the benefits and disadvantages of both sides and I am curious to see how the ads will affect the overall voting in 2020.
I personally believe that facebook should hop on the twitter bandwagon and fact-check the political ads that will be played on their site. I understand facebook's claim over freedom of speech but if politicians are lying and trying to sway the general public, it needs to be monitored. False news is very dangerous for a n election because it can sway voters to vote unwisely in elections. I agree with twitter implementing regulations on political ads and fact-checking for false information. If people do not realize that certain facts are false, they will be thinking that whatever social media says is true, adn that can cause people to have biased opinions and can create violence in places like Myanmar were the only internet is facebook,a dn if facebook is lying then what is actually the truth?
I think that Facebook should not allow political advertisement on their site and take similar action to twitter. A new social media should be created for this specifically because that way these false advertisements can be in direct confitation to others.
I think that Facebook's decision against fact checking political speech is fair. If people are relying on social media for their only news source and believing the first thing they see then they have some work to do. A private company should not have to abide by the wishes of politicians because it will possibly affect their agenda. If there is false information posted maybe it will make people think longer and harder about what is going on in the world and in their nation.
Based on what I know about this situation and the information in the article, I strongly disagree with the decision of Facebook to not censor lies in political ads. It is an obvious grab for power and money, hidden behind the excuse of First Amendment rights and the duty of Facebook to "promote Western ideals of free speech."
In a recent testimony before Congress, Zuckerberg was grilled by the democratic freshman lawmaker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When asked if she could purchase an add, and display it in predominantly African-American zip codes displaying the wrong election date, Zuckerberg said facebook would not stop her. This is blatant voter disenfranchisement on the part of Facebook. By this logic, politicians can target certain voting groups, taking away their votes or feeding them false information that could skew their vote for their own political gain.
This is not free speech. This is blatant buying of elections and deplorable corruption.
In the article, Elizabeth Warren's plan to test a false ad on Facebook to see how far the policy goes is laid out. I commend this move by the Warren campaign. The boundaries will not be set until someone tests them and that is what she is doing. On the topic of Twitter's new policy, I think that is a good idea. By not showing political ads, their platform cannot be bought by politicians and used as an agent of fixing elections.
Facebook needs to seriously consider reform, before the consequences of the law fall on them.
@Cooper Hyldahl
Although I agree with your opinion regarding censoring fake news presented by politicians on Facebook, I am not in agreement that said fake news is an agent of fixing elections. Readers are not necessarily flocks of sheep, and, regardless if the readers are politically savvy or not, if the news is blatantly false to the point of being completely unbelievable, people will not change their ideas based off of that. In short, fake news does not equal fixed elections, but fake news is morally wrong and should not be present on Facebook. As a result, I believe that fake news cannot fix elections, but am still in support of Facebook changing their flawed policy.
I think that Facebook should fact check political speech because I want to vote for someone who is completely honest.
@Kevin R I completely agree. As a new voter, I am beginning to pay more attention to current politics and I realize the value and power that comes with voting. I also believe the same as you; I want to vote for someone who is trustworthy and not willing to make false accusations to win the presidency. I think the political leaders we need have to be honest and looking out for the good of all Americans, not just the good of themselves and what they believe.
@Kevin R I agree that Facebook should fact check political speech because people are very quick to believe and spread information that they read online, whether or not they know if it's actually true. The spread of false information can mislead readers and lead the other negative things. If Facebook regulates what political speech can be posted, it would eliminate this chance of false information being spread around and only true, valid information could be found on the platform.
@Kevin R , You must be so incredibly naive to believe that there is a single politician who is "completely honest". I understand your concern and I do agree that it would be beneficial if politics consisted of honesty instead of partisanship but that is nothing but a dream. With that said, Facebook, as a private company has every right to fact check speech that goes through their platform. However, I believe that it would be in Facebook's best interest to stay out of the "Fact Checking" business. My reasoning for this is very similar to what Mr Chilson said, "the cure to a politicians misstatement is more speech, not to shut it down." In order for us as Americans to determine what we believe to be "good" we must be able to hear the "bad".
Facebooks decision to moderate politicans speechs or fact check them could be a easy way to get false information out on the internet. This a way for politicans to be set up. The fake news will be more dangerous than anything else.
@Jayda I agree because often politicians do not show the full truth in their ads. Creating false news which can become dangerous and sway the public from looking into the facts. Also by facebook not fact-checking their ads, they are allowing there to be ads that may not be true which could end up changing elections and whatnot.
I agree with Facebooks policy against fact checking polititcal speech. It is improtant to be able to see what our politicians are saying even if its false. If they blatantly publish false information they should be exposed for the lies but a private company should not be the gate keeper for political speech. If they needed to fact check then they would inevitably run into issues such as bias, and how much evidence against a claim would be necessary to determine something as false.
@Scott G I partially agree with your statement. I agree that it is important for Facebook to continue allowing politicians to speak freely on their ideals and let them post whatever content they want. This is because it is beneficial for people to see the true values of politicians before they vote for them, even if the facts are false. Facebook is a platform that could reveal things about a candidate that voters never would have been exposed to before.
On the other hand, I disagree that they shouldn't censor fake political ads. If they openly promote an ad that is biased for one party, there are many people that will believe it. Fake information spread like this could severely mess up elections/the government, and I believe that Facebook should protect its users from this kind of content.
1
@Ava Sauer I didn't understand what you meant when you said: "This is because it is beneficial for people to see the true values of politicians before they vote for them, even if the facts are false". If they continue to allow politicians to post false facts about their competition, it'll mislead the people reading it. The only thing it will do is show that some politicians feel the need to put down their opponents. Also, a large percentage of Americans tend to believe everything they read on the internet. This can cause people to make incorrectly biased votes against people because someone claims that Kamala Harris ran dog fights out of her basement.
@Ava Sauer The mainstream news media regularly promotes candidates and political ideas through biased reporting, and far more Americans get their news and information from mainstream media. If the mains sources of news media for America can be completely biased, there is absolutely no reason Facebook should be forced to moderate biased political content. It is all biased and Americans must get their news from multiple different sources and fact check what they see.
Facebook’s decision to not moderate politician’s speeches or fact-check political ads can result in the easy spread of false information. The hands-off approach from Facebook is “giving politicians free rein to post any material-even lies-potentially setting up the social network for more disinformation efforts ahead of the 2020 election.” This policy will most likely end up being a major campaigning tool for both sides, as they will try to knock off their opponents with fake stories. This decision made by Facebook will end up creating major issues during the 2020 election.
People are prone to believe the first things that they see and don’t even attempt to fact check the information. The extreme amounts of false information that is to come from this policy can be very dangerous. People will end up spreading these false stories to those who follow them, and someone who follows them will spread it, resulting in a vicious cycle of lies. I believe that the fake news will be more dangerous in this way than any other.
1
Ultimately, Facebook is a private corporation, and the decision to ban or moderate certain ads is up to them. Regardless, using Facebook as your primary means of staying up-to-date on politics is irresponsible. People are already quick to acknowledge the bias in major news sources, such as CNN or FOX. These sources are run by people trained to portray the news as accurately as possible, and any bias that seeps through is likely just accidental. It seems surprising that, given how many people distrust professional news sites, people are still rushing to Facebook to get their news from people's personal accounts. Since it seems unreasonable to ask millions of people to correct this behavior, the least we can ask from Facebook is for them to take some steps in moderating political content. Perhaps just starting with verified accounts on the website, or not posting political ads would be enough of a start to improve people's understanding of politics. After all, Twitter has recently adopted a similar policy, and it remains a widely accessible source of news. The only difference is that it is now more unbiased, because of the lack of political ads, and is therefore a more reputable way to learn about politics.
@Jillian Steeves I am with you here. It is on an individual basis and up to each person to choose their news outlet. It's a shame that fake news must be instated in the first place. It has been used for excessive amounts of propaganda. Although Facebook is a private corporation, portraying false ads to me is a bit of mockery. They may have the right to keep it, but in order for Facebook to gain back it's trust and legitimacy and restore itself as media entertainment, it's in Facebook's best interest to filter out false advertising.
@Jillian Steeves
I have to respectfully disagree with you that social media, especially Twitter and Facebook, are bad places to stay up to date on political news. Every day, politicians tweet their reactions, share stories on Facebook, and hold debates for everyone to see amongst each other. This makes Facebook and Twitter ground zero for political news and an excellent place to go, if what is being said is true. If Facebook is not reigned in and made to tell the truth, that honest civil discourse is taken away and a great primary source is lost.
1
While I don’t believe Facebook itself should be forced to fact-check political posts, I think it’s important that there is some amount of moderation that goes into fake posts. A surprising number of users on Facebook and other social media platforms don’t check their information before sharing or accepting it. Large corporations may play a part in the spread of misinformation, it’s the user base who creates it in the first place.
@Aiden The facebook moderators have an obligation to the public to spread facts though. Without people watching others speak, there is no differentiating lies from the truth, Is that the purpose of news, or is it to inform the people on accurate information.
@Aiden I agree that there should be some type of fact-checking political information for these big corporations. I'm not quite sure what facebook should do, they're kind of in a controversial situation. But, many people do check facebook for their information and they share around things they don't realize are inaccurate, and many people become misinformed. These large corporations do play a role in spreading misinformation, but people should do a better job not sharing things they know are false and not commenting or posting incorrect facts they know are incorrect.
Part 2-
There are plenty of people that rely on social media sources such as Facebook as their primary source of information. If Facebook refuses to check the reliability of information on their site, all of these people will be living in ignorance of the truth. Instead of promoting the ideals of our democracy, this could be harmful to our country as it would result in a misinformed population. Not only would this policy be detrimental to U.S. citizens, but it could have negative consequences in developing countries such as Myanmar. In these countries, Facebook is the only source of information that connects people to the world. If Facebook does not fact-check its posts, the whole world would have an altered perspective of reality. If the ideals of our democracy were truly to be carried out, we would fight for the truth and do our best to ensure that false information is not spread throughout the world.
1
Part 1-
I am quite surprised that Facebook has stated that they will no longer moderate political comments. Freedom of speech is a right that all citizens and politicians ought to have, but only to a certain extent. The privilege of having freedom of speech should not be exploited by politicians. Posting false information and misinforming people throughout the world is part of exploiting the right of freedom of speech. If politicians realize that Facebook is not fact-checking their site, they will take advantage and post false information all over the site. This will lead to politicians being conveyed in untruthful ways and will only make the competition between Democrat and Republican candidates dirtier. Facebook’s policy will result in a downward spiral in politics and could lead to multiple issues before the 2020 election.
The article states that the Trump campaign posted a false video on Facebook stating that “Mr. Biden committed corrupt acts in Ukraine.” This is extremely unfair to Mr. Biden and Facebook should definitely fact-check or remove videos like this where guilt-free politicians are portrayed as criminals. Not only would politicians be able to post false information, but anybody could post anything. People would definitely take advantage of this policy and soon, there would be more lies circulating on Facebook than actual information. Eventually, we would have no way to differentiate the truthful statements from the false information.
1
The role of social media sites in society is to provide a public forum for discussion, not to employ of form of political censorship. Ideally, politicians would not release false information to the public in order to promote an agenda. While this is the ideal, if social media companies employed censorship to achieve this goal, this would perhaps be an unethical means to achieving a desired end. Additionally, censoring politicians to avoid false statements is a reactive rather than proactive approach to ending the spread of false statements. Even if politicians are restricted on social media, if their intent is to promote their agenda through false statements, this can be done on other platforms. Social media should not be responsible for fact-checking politicians. Politicians need to understand their influential position of power in society and act accordingly, meaning they should fact-check themselves.