The major social media services have recently offered their plans for political ads. Twitter is out. Facebook is in.
As I understand the Facebook position, Zuck is arguing that he is pro free speech and suggests that his platform offers the opportunity for those who find fault with an ad to voice their objection. He also has created a database of political ads so that anyone who is interested can investigate just what different candidates claim.
I see the Facebook argument as an attempt to justify the ad revenue generated. It is based on an inaccurate representation of how people use Facebook. My perspective follows:
- The most serious practical fallacy concerns the suggestion that public discussion of ads will identify false claims. This might be true if all posts were shown to all individuals. This is not what happens on Facebook. People tend to follow individuals who think like they think and Facebook puts items in the feeds Facebook users see based on the priorities Facebook has determined motivate readers. Simply put, Facebook has created a filter bubble that shows people what they want to see.
- Responses to flawed ads would have to be offered as comments. First, the comments added to an ad would come mostly from those who see the ad (see #1) and most readers don’t bother to review comments anyway.
- The Facebook ad library is not likely to draw much attention. In case you care interested, here is the link. Even if those concerned take the opportunity to investigate this library and use Facebook to complain would those reading the complaint be likely to be those individuals who were positively influenced by the ad in the first place? Again, not likely.