1) facebook didn't block distribution 2) the article in question meets facebook's policy on political content 3) this article didn't include any reference to aforementioned policy 4) subjective claims of "independent, nonpartisain" as a way to avoid political content policies
-
-
-
FB's algorithm makes it much harder for
@reveal to reach the audience it had a few months prior. Boosting the post (and handing FB money) is one way to help mitigate that. This is journalism, not advocacy, and any rational observer reading the article in question can see that. -
facebook's policy on political content doesn't care about the distinction between journalism and advocacy (neither do I). reveal seemed not to want to go through the trivial transparency hoops that facebook allows for paid promotion of such content.
-
So does the NY Times have to provide Facebook with a person's social security number and address to be able to boost a story? Fox News, whom they just announced a "partnership" with? Does every media outlet have to do this? Honest question, I'm not being facetious.
-
I hope facebook is consistent here. facebook's polices are innocuous compared to than youtube's wholesale demonetization of non-corporate political content. either way, I find the media complaining about the current atmosphere absurd since they caused it with russia alarmism.
-
That's a lot pinned on hope, and little on transparency, which basically could have prevented the "Russia alarmism" to begin with.
-
Funny, this issue came up before. Facebook noted an attempt to find middleground here:https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/authorizing-ads-with-political-content-why-publishers-are-included …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.