Should Facebook Allow False Political Ads?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/letters/facebook-political-ads.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg,” by Aaron Sorkin (Op-Ed, Nov. 1):

Why is it the job of a private citizen (Mark Zuckerberg) or even a corporation (Facebook) to enforce false advertising claims? Is The New York Times responsible for checking whether Bounty is in fact the “quicker picker-upper”? Of course not. It is the government’s responsibility to create and enforce false advertising claims.

The outrage over Facebook’s response to false advertising claims on its platform from legislators is appalling. Why don’t they create laws that address this very issue as they have with other false advertising claims? It is in fact the ineptitude of our own government to police political advertising that we should be up in arms about instead of expecting corporations to do what our government is unwilling to.

Jesse LeveySan Francisco

To the Editor:

Neither Aaron Sorkin nor Mark Zuckerberg fully understands the problem with Facebook’s policy allowing false political ads. As an educator, I think the real issue is that so many Americans can’t read.

The National Center for Education Statistics just released its 2019 results. They’re bad. Only about one in three American eighth graders can read at a proficient level or better. Other studies have shown that fewer than 40 percent of 12th graders reach this milestone, and adult reading levels aren’t any better.

So even if Facebook users had the time to investigate questionable claims, most wouldn’t have the skills to. Reading competency is required to distinguish fact from fiction. Debunking claims that Elizabeth Warren is protecting a climate change hoax requires the ability to understand a scientific study, or at least the analysis of one. But the vast majority of American social media users are galaxies away from comprehending complex texts and multidimensional arguments.

It’s time that we acknowledge our country’s literacy crisis and its immense power to propel propaganda. Facebook’s “free speech” policy may work in a literate society, but it’s dangerous in ours.

Colette ColemanNew York

To the Editor:

Despite Aaron Sorkin’s obvious familiarity with law and the legal process, as demonstrated by his brilliant screenplays, his open letter to Mark Zuckerberg plainly demonstrates that he does not understand the nuances of the First Amendment. The federal courts have held that information would circulate in a “marketplace of ideas” in which truth would rise to the surface, vetted by an educated public. It is not Facebook’s job to separate fact from fiction; it is our job as individual citizens.

It is only through education and careful scrutiny that the public at large will be able to determine what is true and what is not. Policing the purveyors of information, false as it may be, will ultimately do more harm than good.

Roger SladeMiami

To the Editor:

Kudos to Aaron Sorkin for calling out Mark Zuckerberg. Denying that Facebook has become a media outlet is just laughable, and it is long past requiring regulation. Along with his net worth, Mr. Zuckerberg’s ego has grown exponentially and, it appears, distorted his judgment.

Personal Facebook communications are one thing; political ads are quite another. It is well known that even the First Amendment doesn’t protect falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. The Facebook content that Mr. Zuckerberg is trying to defend can be just as dangerous.

Cathy N. GoldsteinNew York

To the Editor:

Re “Dissent Erupts at Facebook” (Business Day, Oct. 29), about a letter sent by Facebook employees to Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, objecting to management’s decision to allow politicians to post any ads on the site, even false ones:

Here’s a suggestion for a possible middle ground:

Publishing a disclaimer with political ads could warn readers that the ad might not be accurate. Political ads would be labeled “paid political advertising” and say, “Facebook does not censor political advertising, so the content might, or might not, be accurate.”

Marvin DiamondEvanston, Ill.

To the Editor:

“Dissent Erupts at Facebook” highlights a dilemma confronting Facebook. There are substantial reasons, including the principle of free speech, to let politicians post any claims they want, even false ones, in ads on the site. On the other hand, dissemination of false information, particularly on a prominent and influential site, can be very harmful.

One possible response to this problem is to let politicians post any claims they want in ads on the site, but to have refutations by Facebook of false or misleading statements displayed prominently with these ads. These refutations should include specific references to relevant sources of information, when appropriate. When this is to be done, the advertiser should be informed. In some such cases, the advertisement may be withdrawn or altered, but Facebook will not be responsible for making this decision.

Peter B. AndrewsPittsburgh

To the Editor:

An alternative to making Facebook the censor of lies published on its site is to de-anonymize postings everywhere on the web. Let readers see the “who” behind everything and judge truth for themselves. Such identification should be meaningful, including name and geographic location of the poster.

Anonymous lies, spam and malicious phishing are not necessary evils inherent in the internet. Anonymity is not essential to the preservation of speech free from governmental interference. Protecting the identity of sources to prevent governmental retribution is easily distinguishable from a guarantee of anonymity for all speech.

The technology for identifying internet users is available. The World Wide Web Consortium could implement this without any national government’s action. Consider fixing the whole system along with Facebook.

Richard BeemanVero Beach, Fla.

To the Editor:

Re “Pushing America to the Breaking Point,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, Oct. 30):

The goal of advertising is not honesty or accuracy. It is to present a product, service or candidate in the best possible light to maximize chances of a sale — or an election victory. People expect ads to contain lies and hyperbole and usually act accordingly. It’s virtually the definition of advertising.

Does The New York Times check every fact or claim in every ad on every page? Does The Washington Post? Does any medium? Why pick on Facebook? Or on Donald Trump for that matter? All politicians lie. All advertisers lie. People accept it. It’s the world we live in.

Allen NachemanBangkok

To the Editor:

Re “Facebook Can Help the News Business,” by Mark Zuckerberg (Sunday Review, Oct. 27):

Mr. Zuckerberg’s initiative of a curated “Facebook News” program seems well meaning. However, it ignores how Facebook’s news feed has hobbled the local news industry without a replacement that upholds journalistic integrity.

I’m a filmmaker who studies the effect of social media on local journalism. The affected New Jersey journalists with whom I’ve talked consistently cite Facebook’s news feed as financially and socially damaging. The feed has popularized inflammatory interpretations and inadequately researched writing, rather than the extensively investigated material published by dedicated journalists.

The digitization of media has had substantial social consequences. Online advertisements garner far less money than print ones — insufficient for a functional news staff. Journalistic quality thus falls. The Facebook news feed’s inflammatory articles often source their interpretations from such underfunded local news, leading to a worsening cycle of disinformation.

Beyond Facebook News, Mr. Zuckerberg should amend the news feed to offer socially responsible journalism.

Andrew NiPrinceton, N.J.