Facebook removed false political ad days after Zuckerberg testimony


FACEBOOK HE INTERVENED IN SOME POLITICAL ADS TOOK DOWN A FALSE AD ABOUT SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM POVTDZ BY POLITICAL AUCTION COMMITTEE REALLY ON LINE WILL HAVE THEY LEAGUE ALLEGED GRAHAM SUPPORTING GREEN NEW DEAL, RIGHT NOW FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL NAFLT IF YOU ARE HAVING PEOPLE TESTING LIMITS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF FAKE NEWS.>>YOU ARE THEY SUCCEED IN TEST THING LIMITS, THEY DID SO WITHIN A WEEK OF WHEN MARK ZUCKERBERG SAID UNDER OATH IN A RATHER AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY CONGRESSWOMAN ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ FACEBOOK WOULD NOT INVESTOR ACCURACY OF ADS WE DON’T KNOW IF THIS HAPPENED THE YEAHED PATENTLY UNTRUE SAID SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SPORTS GREEN NEW DEAL HARDLY THE CASE, BUILT IF YOU LOOK AT THE AD IT SOUNDED LIKE HE DID MANIPULATED HIS WORDS FACE SO IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS SUPPORTING.>>THAT IS NOT RIGHT TO MANIPULATE SOMEBODY’S VOICE.>>OF COURSE, IT IS NOT RIGHT. THE QUESTION IS IT RIGHT — NOT RIGHT TO DO I MANIPULATION, THE QUESTION IS IS IT RIGHT FOR FACEBOOK TO TAKE IT DOWN? IF FACEBOOK REALLY KNEW THAT IT WAS FALSE, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE IT DOWN, BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP AN OPINION THEY DEBRIS WITH. DAGEN: DISTINCTION IT IS NOT ACTUALLY POLITICIANS IT IS A GROUP A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE THAT IS THE DISTINCTION THAT FACEBOOK IS MAKING, THEY SAID BECAUSE A PACK NOT POLITICIAN WAS ELIGIBLE FOR REVIEW BY COMPANY THIRD PARTY FACT-CHECKING PARTNERS ZUCKERBERG MADE CLEAR TO AOC WHEN SHE USED CAPITAL OF COULD SHE TARGET PREDOMINANTLY BLACK ZIP CODES WITH MISINFORMATION ABOUT ELECTION ZUCKERBERG SAID IF ANYBODY INCLUDING POLITICIANS IS SAYING THINGS CAN CAUSE HARM VIOLENCE, PHYSICAL HARM OR SUPPRESSION WE WILL TAKE CONTENT DOWN NOT CUT-AND-DRIED YOU CAN LIE IF INVOLVED IN POLITICS IN ANY WAY SHAPE FORM.>>SHE ASKED HIM IN MY OPINION PRO FOUND QUESTIONS, THAT GO THEORIST OF FREE SPEECH NOT HEART OF FIRST AMENDMENT ONLY STRAINS GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FACEBOOK IS NOT RESTRAINED BY FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT. FACEBOOK IS RESTRAINED BY STATUTES THAT PREVENT IT FROM BEING SUED WHEN IT POSTS SOMETHING THAT CASES HARM WHAT ITS CUSTOMER BASE WANTS, NOT RESTRAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT. DAGEN: ZUCKERBERG WAS TRYING TO SAY TO ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ IN TERMS OF THE IF A POLITICIAN PUTS UP AN AD THAT HAS FALSEHOODS IN IT WILL LIES THAT GOES TO THE PONGS LOCK OF HONESTY EARN MEDIUM WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IF A CANDIDATE IS PUTTING OUT AN AD IF I HAVE APPROVE THIS MESSAGE AND I AM JOE SMOO RUNNING FOR SENATE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT INDIVIDUAL IS LYING.>>IF A PACK PUTS IT UP NOT AN INDIVIDUALIZED CAMPAIGN. DAGEN: AN ORGANIZATION.>>WHAT ARE THE LEGAL WHERE IS THE LEGAL LINE IF SOMEONE PUTS UP SOMETHING THAT IS KNOWINGLY FACTUALLY UNTRUE LINING LINDSEY GRAHAM SPORTS THE GREEN NEW DEAL CLEARLY DOES NOT NOT AN OPINION, SO ABSENT THE STATUTE THAT SAYS BASICALLY WITHOUT USING THIS PHRASE, FACEBOOK IS BULLETIN BOARD ABSENT THAT IF LINDSEY GRAHAM WANTS TO SUE HIM WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY OR RECKLESS DISREGARD AS TO WHETHER TRUE OR NOT THAT IS — DAGEN: PUT IT OUT THERE SOMEBODILYING ABOUT YOU DISPARAGEING YOU HURTING YOU YOU CAN SHOW FINANCIAL DAMAGE CAN SUE PANTS OFF HIM.>>DVN DN DEVIN NUNES SUING TWITTER TULSI GABBARD SUING GOOGLE.>>I DON’T KNOW.>>– WHAT CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION — SHE SAYS GOOGLE CENSORS HER.>>GOOGLE CAN DO ALL SONSORING IT WANTS SHOULD LOSS MARKET SHARE AS A RESULT OF THAT SHOULD NOT SUFFER FROM HEAVY HAND OF THE GOVERNMENT THE LAW AS IT IS NOW THAT LAW MAY CHANGE PEOPLE MAY TAKE THE DAGEN MCDOWELL VIEW, WHO ARE THEY TO MINUTE THE TO MANIPULATE THE MARKET.>>HOW ABOUT THE RULE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO NOT BE SUED, IS ANY THAT IS LOW HANGING TRIBUTE RIGHT.>>. DAGEN: PART OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT FROM MID 1990S, AGAIN, IT WAS BACK WHEN IT WAS BULLETIN BOARDS THE OPERATOR OF SAY BULLETIN BOARD CHAT GROUP CAN’T BE SUED FOR POST BY AN INDIVIDUAL. AND IT HAS BEEN BROADENED OUT TO INCLUDE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES, BUT I — THEY COULD — IF CONGRESS COULD EVER DO ANYTHING THAT — ANYTHING THAN THEY WOULD THEY COULD POTENTIALLY REPEAL THAT.>>IMPEACHMENT — NOT DOING ANYTHING.>>CONGRESS CAUGHT UP IN A LOT OF THINGS BUT IF CONGRESS REPEALED THAT STATUTE, FACEBOOK WOULD BECOME A SELF REGULATOR HOW FATHER WOULD THEY GO LINDSEY GRAHAM SPORTS GREEN GREE THE GREEN NEW DEAL UNTRUE AN OPINION CENSOR THAT THEY BELIEVE NO BASIS FOR THE OPINION CONCEPT CENSORSHIP IS DANGEROUS THIS RISE OR FALL ON MATTER OF PRINCIPLE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS NOT SUNSET.>>THAT IS WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY CONTAINED FALSEHOODS WANT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY IF YOU CHOOSE TO LIE TO AMERICAN PEOPLE THEY WILL KNOW THAT THEY WILL YOU ARE DAMAGING YOURSELVES NOT DAMAGING.>>ONELS NEVERTHELESS IF SOMEONE GOES ON FACEBOOK TAKES ON AN AD ABOUT YOU, AND A LIE, DAMAGES YOU, THEN YOU COULD SUE THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE AD OUT MAYBE NOT FACEBOOK, BUT YOU CAN –>>AGAINST SULLIVAN STANDARD WOULD COME IN IF PERSON DOING

7 thoughts on “Facebook removed false political ad days after Zuckerberg testimony

  1. The video on Facebook to me is a form of slander. Slander is already something that can be brought into court and I would have no problem with someone doing so of it were to happen to them. I don't feel it's necessarily Facebook's responsibility to look for these types of videos but if it's flagged and brought to their attention I think it's in their best interest to bring them down for the sake of those being libeled against. I say it's a form of slander because it falsely distorts an image a person wishes to portray themselves as. But holding Facebook responsible for finding and taking these ads down in my opinion sets a dangerous precedent, this wasn't a banner ad, it was a post by a political group's Facebook account and videos like the one they posted can be posted just as easily by any other person that uses Facebook.

  2. So Republicans and Donald Trump can't lie on Facebook??? No body else can okay it's all about money I don't trust Republicans Or Democrats ((I'm all in for Bernie))

  3. There is no law that says we the public has the right to Face Book, YouTube, Twitter or any thing else we enjoy on the internet. If we cannot appreciate that, then the day will come when we will have to pay for everything we research or do on the internet. Think about it.

  4. AOC 'profound questions' hahaha.. Really deep questions from someone who thinks cauliflower is racist, and that there is a singularity in her garbage disposal. She is doing pretty well, learning the dark art of false predicate entrapment.

  5. The judge is right. Let the people as individuals and then as a whole decide what is true and what is not. As soon as we start to sensor any one thing, all things are open to censorship in some fashion by some group of any persons. Letting the ceo's of companies or the government step in to apply censorship to the people is giving them too much power. Let the ideas rise and fall in the market place of ideas. The judge is exactly right in that statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *