I'm disappointed with the Facebook ad decision. Not a smart move for the company; targeting limits and a minimal standard on claims about opponents would represent a defensible, non-partisan and helpful position.
From chat with @mathewi on this:
https://galley.cjr.org/public/conversations/-LsHiyaqX4DpgKDqf9Mj …
-
-
I mean, wasn’t that the TLDR of the whole enlightenment movement?
-
I mostly agree with you, and I think many in the media will come to regret their strident pushing for Facebook to take on so much power. That being said, all at-scale online speech is moderated to reduce various risks. These platforms would be completely unusable if not.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I have to agree 100% here. With the caveat that it really is 2 billion people doing the fact checking. What we really should be limiting is micro targeting and creating small echo chambers for these sorts of messages versus fact checking what's in the message.
-
What do you guys think about reducing costs for new candidates and NGOs? I think that it makes sense. In the case of Facebook, it still doesn't find a way to differentiate political ads from politicians and other organizations.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"if someone offered me propaganda I would simply say no thank you"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.