The case Zuck wants to make is that he should be free from the consequences of choosing to take money to distribute lies. He wants to do so by claiming its his obligation to give free speech to politicians but this is clearly rubbish - it's a protection no other megaphone vendor has. Take CNN for example, they can and do refuse to broadcast some political adverts because they have an obligation. An obligation that Zuckerberg contents shouldn't exist. What he is advocating for is a fundamental re-definition of what free speech in the US means.
Per the First Amendment, Zuck can do whatever he likes with his platform. He can refuse to broadcast whatever he wants, just like CNN and other news networks. But just as important, he is free to NOT refuse to broadcast whatever he pleases. There are no legal consequences for that (outside of the narrow exceptions in Brandenburg v Ohio).
The argument that he is making is that he wants Facebook to be a platform that upholds the ideal of free speech. Whether or not Facebook follows through and actually practices this philosophy equally, remains to be seen.
The problem is, that it appears that buy buying a facebook advert you're essentially buying the ability for facebook to refuse to scrutinize you. The argument he's actually trying to make is:
>Should we block all political ads? Google, YouTube and most internet platforms run these same ads, most cable networks run these same ads, and of course national broadcasters are required by law to run them by FCC regulations.
But that's a lie. People aren't criticising Facebook for running the same ads that run on CNN. They're criticising facebook for running ads that CNN refuses to run. But instead, he completely fails to engage with the fact that cable networks have a different, coherent policy. Whilst Facebook's policy is that they're both a free speech platform, but also that they spend more money on getting harmful content off their platform than any other company in the world. That's the reason it's confusing - because the criticism of facebook isn't that its adhering to free speech principles, it's that its selectively using free speech as a defence when it suits them.
The "free from consequences" argument is a thin rationalization for political thuggery. You can't make your case intellectually, so you're going to go after people's livelihoods.
This is a problem far greater than literally anything that could be broadcast in a radio spot. And for now, the photocopiers and push pollers still exist no matter what happens with Facebook.
Except no one has proposed banning bots, machine learning, or shutting down anonymous actors. Those are all boogeymen.
Any paid ad can be required to be transparent to whatever degree we want to impose on the advertiser.
That's why, honestly phrased, this question would be, "will my side continue to stay in power if the other side is allowed to get their message out?"
I don't think any Government should force Facebook's hand; rather they should seek to protect their social license and act independently in their own best long-term interests—as Jack Dorsey recently did for Twitter.
We want free speech, not a lawless society. I hope.
To your point, how is there no way to police threatening messages advertised on facebook? It seems quite easy to figure out who paid for the ad if they are indeed breaking the law with threats.
The flawed argument Zuck made is that in order to have free speech we must have paid speech. That's a self-serving fallacy.
There's a difference between paying for printing costs and paying a middle man to distribute your message to an arbitrary number of people, especially when that middle man has zero accountability and zero marginal cost.
> No one is saying paid speech is not free speech.
The parent to whom I was responding said "It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisement", implying that they believe that paid speech is not free speech.
> The flawed argument Zuck made is that in order to have free speech we must have paid speech.
Zuck never said that. From the article, he is quoted as having said: "Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates,"
Zuck never said it explicitly, but it's strongly implied from his conflation of free speech and paid ads that he thinks paid ads are necessary for the freedom of speech.
That's where the fallacy lies. Paid ads, while being free speech, skew the messages' reach. It's cute that he tries to use a grassroots message as the upside, but it overlooks two massive problems that are pervasive on his platform.
1. The deeper your pockets, the louder your megaphone. It doesn't really matter that the little guys can also buy political ads if the big players can drown them out. In fact, I would say it has the opposite effect than the one he suggests. A grassroots effort with a compelling message can make waves without political advertising, e.g. the Arab Spring. But in an environment where most political messaging is ad-based, a small effort will never have enough resources to compete with a larger foe.
2. There is no accountability in the political ads. In one example, there are at least 10 "different" pages all disseminating the same false messages, coordinated at the same time. Yet Facebook says these are unrelated pages. Being as there is no reporting of who is funding the ads, it's impossible to tell if it is a candidate, a PAC, or a foreign power backing them. And as we've seen, that lack of accountability can be very problematic.
We have a lot of rules about political speech because we have seen over time how it can be abused. Social media did not exist at the time, but now it has more power than any other form of media. Twitter sidestepped the whole issue, and kudos to them for it. Candidates and PACs can still get their messages out, but now it has to be on merit rather than money. Facebook is going the opposite direction, and that's a problem.
Paid advertising is not fundamentally different from these.
The freedom of advocacy is inseparable from the freedom of speech. It costs money to print pamphlets, buy air time, pay people to stand on the corner, conduct opinion polls, etc.
Say that you or I have a novel political idea that we want to advocate for. How do you propose that we do so? We'd probably form a non-profit, spend money contacting potential allies, convince them on the merits of our case and to donate to us, then spend that money on pamphlets, TV, radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work.
If paid advertisements are not free speech, then the concept of free speech would cease to exist beyond street corner rants.