Dissent at Facebook over hands-off stance on political ads

Re:Dissent at Facebook over hands-off stance on political ads by dillondoyle on Monday October 28, 2019 @04:40PM (#21381404)

I think it's less about revenue and more about common carrier status. Though FB has recently put out confusing signals [1], it seems that if they start to editorialize what content is delivered, even just a fraction, they are liable to editorialize it all - at HUGE cost.

1 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dissent at Facebook over hands-off stance on political ads by mandevil on Monday October 28, 2019 @05:03PM (#21381640)

They currently do all sorts of blocking on what content is delivered. Try and run an ad with nudity. The sorts of nudity that is routine in a European advertising context is blocked on Facebook, because they choose not to. They could easily do the same for political ads, but they don't because they choose not to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dissent at Facebook over hands-off stance on political ads by manfredo on Monday October 28, 2019 @07:59PM (#21383066)

This article erroneously claims that if Facebook is a publisher it loses section 230 protections. This is not the case. See https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230 for more details.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dissent at Facebook over hands-off stance on political ads by otterley on Monday October 28, 2019 @10:11PM (#21383703)

Facebook is not a common carrier, and has never been one.

[ Parent | on HN ]