Facebook already bans ads that all for violence or try to intimiadate voters. That's taking some element of social responsibility.
Gauging what is and isn't true is not a trivial task. Say a party runs an ad opposing nuclear power calling it dangerous and unsafe. The opposition phones into Facebook and complains about a factually incorrect ad, pointing to the fact that nuclear energy has inflicted much less harm per megawatt hour than most of not every other energy source. Should Facebook pull the ad for being false? Swap out nuclear for pretty much any other controversial opinion, like the effectiveness of busing or effects of taxation on the economy, and we can see that determining truth is a nigh impossible task.
Making Facebook an arbiter or truth seems like a remedy that is worse than the illness.
We’re acting like this is a problem that effects both parties equally when it’s clearly not. Who are the Russian trollbots helping? Who denies climate change and climate science? Who routinely lies? It’s primarily one political party. So Facebook saying they don’t want to get involved is just to appease republicans and they even do things like add Breitbart to the “quality news” tab... they’re clearly not doing all his to be impartial or neutral—-it’s purely to appease republicans who have to lie and deceive voters or else they’d lose.
Russian interference was both pro and against both parties - most estimates put them at 50-60% in favor of the right and 40-50% in favor of the left. They're not helping anyone, they're trying to sow discord wherever they can.
> Who denies climate change and climate science?
I regularly see people claiming that if no action is taken in the next 12 years humanity will go extinct. This runs contrary to mainstream climate science.
> Who routinely lies?
I think I've demonstrated why this is problematic for Facebook to determine.
Bullcrap false equivalency without any citation for those stats you pulled out of thin air. Russian trolls aren’t helping both sides... and when they help democrats or progressives it’s a stooge like Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard, to syphon off votes and help republicans. Russian trolls are primarily helping republicans because republicans are weak on foreign policy to Russia and a lot of Russian oligarchs have been giving money to Republicans. It’s clearly happening more on one side than the other, so again the false equivalence and whataboutism to try and paint both sides as the same doesn’t work. Putin is mad as hell about the Magnitisky act—passed by Obama—-in contrast to Moscow Mitch McConnnell and Trump who have repeatedly weakened sanctions on Russia and gone out of the way to aid Russian foreign interests—-no comparable enablement on the left...
Denying climate science and being hyperbolic is also false equivalence. The only climate deniers in developed countries are republicans... it’s clearly an issue specific to them. One side is arguing the problem doesn’t exist and you’re acting like a a few extremists on twitter speak for the left. Again, not an intellectually honest or logically supported argument.
You really have only demonstrated your own biased perspective and false equivalence and whataboutism that’s used to pretend like both sides are the same when one is clearly worse than the other.
Go look how Trump and McConnell reduced sanctions on Russia and now a Russian oligarch connected to Putin is building a steel plant in Kentucky. The quid who pro is so obvious. Look at how Trump handed Syria to Putin on a platter... It’s so obvious Russia is helping republicans and not democrats, I can’t even comprehend how someone would think they’re helping both sides unless you’re just not getting beyond the conservative media bubble.
And I present exhibit A of why tasking Facebook with categorizing truth and falsehoods is never going to work. It will inevitably lead to charges of bias from people who think Facebook is being partisan with it's categorizations, and prompt responses like these left and right.
Gauging what is and isn't true is not a trivial task. Say a party runs an ad opposing nuclear power calling it dangerous and unsafe. The opposition phones into Facebook and complains about a factually incorrect ad, pointing to the fact that nuclear energy has inflicted much less harm per megawatt hour than most of not every other energy source. Should Facebook pull the ad for being false? Swap out nuclear for pretty much any other controversial opinion, like the effectiveness of busing or effects of taxation on the economy, and we can see that determining truth is a nigh impossible task.
Making Facebook an arbiter or truth seems like a remedy that is worse than the illness.