It seems like Trump successfully turned 'fake news' into mush where people can't distinguish between different categories of speech. Even Dems get confused and can't think starting from first principles. They are asking FB to sensor political speech.
First, the ad itself makes the point viscerally through a bald-face lie. Second, by generating publicity around the ad, greatly multiplying it’s reach.
In Poland (but just during elections) you can sue other politicians with fast line process that takes I think 24 hours
I think she should aim to regulate ads on social media by some kind of institution, not make FB have more power
We do, but our Supreme Court has ruled that, under the First Amendment to our Constitution, a public official (or candidate for public office) must prove that the defamatory statement was false AND that it was made with "actual malice," meaning that the accused libeler / slanderer either (i) knew the statement was false or (ii) recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true. [0] This is a pretty tough burden of proof for the plaintiff to carry, so most politicians don't bother suing for libel or slander.
[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Religious beliefs are for me demonstrably false, for example. If I were running FB and politicians would ask me do moderate that would not fly. This could work in reverse in FoxNews controlled media. No TV-ads with climate change message for example.
Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads in 2016
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/
and
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18015228/facebook-top-politic...
https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...
This seems like it's playing into the hands of political opponents who might accuse the campaign of being dishonest.
They probably need Twitter, etc. for other demographics.
-- James Hetfield
