Facebook says it will not fact-check ads by UK political parties and candidates running in December election, but will fact-check political groups like Leave.EU

Facebook's political ad policy under pressure — London and New York (CNN Business)A controversial policy allowing politicians …

CNN 2019-11-03

Context & Ripple Effects

This decision lands at the end of a year-long UK rollout of Facebook's political ads regime: in November 2018 it began enforcing transparency rules but declined to make disclosure mandatory, then carved news outlets out of the political ad archive. With a December election called, the company has now drawn its sharpest line yet — fact-checking applies by speaker type, not by claim.

The asymmetry matters because third-party campaign groups like Leave.EU were central actors in prior UK elections, and they are precisely the category Facebook says it will still check. Parties and candidates get an unchecked channel; everyone else does not.

First-order effects

UK parties and candidates can run ads containing false claims through the December campaign with no third-party fact-check labels, while political groups like Leave.EU face fact-checking on the same kind of content.
Campaign spend and messaging now have a clear arbitrage: content routed through official party or candidate pages escapes scrutiny that identical content from an affiliated group would trigger.

Second-order effects

The two-tier rule pressures Facebook's own enforcement consistency — determining which spender counts as a 'party or candidate' versus a political group becomes the decisive judgment call, inviting disputes over misclassified pages.
Facebook's refusal to bend sets up a collision with UK authorities over whether ad integrity should be set by platform policy or statute; its January 2020 move to hold the line on political lies while offering users fewer-political-ads controls shows the company substituting user preference tools for content adjudication.

Third-order effects

If the politician-exemption pattern holds across elections, platform speech governance structurally shifts from judging claims to classifying speakers — pushing regulators toward mandating disclosure and accuracy rules that platforms decline to self-impose, extending the transparency fight Facebook opened in the UK back in 2018.
Election advertising ecosystems would reorganize around identity categories: organizations with a plausible path to party or candidate status gain a scrutiny shield, concentrating persuasive power in official political channels.

The trend: Platform election-integrity policy is consolidating around a politician exemption — fact-checking and moderation keyed to who is speaking rather than what is claimed — leaving statutory disclosure rules as the likely next battleground.

Discussion

@clearpolitic5 @clearpolitic5 on x
We are big supporters of the disinformation inquiry. However, the solution to this problem is the gap in the inquiry's recommendations to bring political ad regulation in line with all other ads in having rules for factual claims. Not media owner rules 👉 http://reformpoliticaladv…
@gian_tcatt Joel Benjamin on x
Facebook quid-pro-quo of corrupt electioneering: - we'll run your dark ads for money to get you elected - in exchange, your Govt won't regulate us out of existence https://edition.cnn.com/...
@dabeard David Beard on x
In one of Britain's most critical elections in decades, Facebook will allow politicians to run false ads https://www.cnn.com/...
@damiancollins Damian Collins on x
You can read my comments here for @CNNBusiness on Facebook, political ads and Nick Clegg https://edition.cnn.com/...
@marxdeane @marxdeane on x
Note: “There are strict rules around campaigning in the UK — campaigns only last six weeks and there are no paid campaign ads on television or radio. Instead, political parties and candidates get equal time from broadcasters.” Wouldn't that upset Mr Palmer? #Auspol #LNPfail https…
@peterjukes Peter Jukes on x
Clegg... lamented to The Yorkshire Post about “the colossal scale of the lies spread by the Leave campaign.” However, Clegg, who joined Facebook in 2018, does not believe Facebook should be responsible for fact-checking politicians. https://edition.cnn.com/...
@shannimcg Shannon McGregor, PhD on x
good @nytimes op-ed by @sivavaid on political ads. Extreme policies on polar ends from FB & Twitter both point toward the urgent need for the same thing: govt. regulation around the means by which voters can be digitally targeted. https://twitter.com/...
@sivavaid Siva Vaidhyanathan on x
I (sort of) defend Facebook's political ad policy here. I excuse it, mostly. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@farkasjohan Johan Farkas on x
Fantastic op-ed by @sivavaid. Can only agree: we need legistlation curbing targeted political ads! https://www.nytimes.com/...
@gpanger @gpanger on x
“A reason to be concerned about false claims in ads is that Facebook affords us so little opportunity to respond to ads not aimed at us personally.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
@slpng_giants @slpng_giants on x
Totally agree with this, but those who created the problem should be tasked with fixing it, even if it's difficult. Truth and democracy are at stake. This shit is hard. A world of disinformation is much, much harder. https://twitter.com/...
@fmbutt Farooq Butt on x
The real reason Facebook won't fact check (or ban) political ads? It doesn't have to & it's really important for FB to keep global leaders (who use FB to get elected & re-elected) very happy. The only answer: legal pushback by citizens & employees. https://www.nytimes.com/... htt…
@evanselinger Evan Selinger on x
You know that feeling when you read something brilliant that clearly states a truth your previously overworked mind couldn't get to the bottom of? Tks, @sivavaid, for identifying the $ basis of Zuck's obfuscating disingenuousness! ht @BrettFrischmann https://www.nytimes.com/...
@sarafischer Sara Fischer on x
This is closest version to my understanding of situation as well. Agreeing to ban political ads would open FB up to a much bigger problem: It will be very hard to stop them from coming in anyway via self-serve platform, showing a more existential problem https://www.nytimes.com/.…
@laylamoran @laylamoran on x
Twitter is banning all paid for political ads. Something had to be done to start to combat the increasingly sophisticated fake news that is damaging our democracy. I am supportive of the move and other platforms should follow. Roll back, regulate, restore trust. https://twitter.c…
@davidakaye David Kaye on x
strong recommend. if this policy ends up in effect privileging high-follower count politicians over new entries and marginalized voices, it's not really a ‘win for democracy’ is it https://twitter.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
Ads about climate change are political, Twitter says. But what about ads by oil companies, car companies, and steakhouses? They're political too, in a sense—but not the sense that will get them banned. https://onezero.medium.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@heerjeet Jeet Heer on x
2. Also, as @WillOremus notes, Twitter's new policy will limit the ad buying power not just of politicians but political movements, including unions and environmentalists. But it won't hut their opponents. https://onezero.medium.com/...
@stevesi Steven Sinofsky on x
Twitter's Ban on Political Ads Will Hurt Activists, Labor Groups, and Organizers by @WillOremus https://onezero.medium.com/... // Seemingly simple and popular choices rarely represent a workable solution. Here are some of the issues.
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
There are no easy answers when it comes to the questions of how social media companies should balance impact of free speech. Twitter's ban of political ads which was lauded as easy answer has goal posts moved since argument now doing this hurts activists https://onezero.medium.co…
@rtushnet Rebecca Tushnet on x
Roger Ford's recent article on targeting is very important here: https://papers.ssrn.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@edifiedlistener Sherri Spelic on x
“In a sense, every ad for a brand or product is an advertisement for capitalism and consumerism, and Twitter is cool with that. But try to advertise for socialism, civil rights, or public goods and see how quickly you run afoul of the...” — @WillOremus https://onezero.medium.com…
@sub8u Subrahmanyam Kvj on x
Very good read from @WillOremus. Twitter got itself a bunch of feel-good tweets & praises, but the road ahead on its political ad ban is anything but straightforward. Also reflects how fb's thinking is probably more evolved in this area. No easy solutions! https://onezero.medium.…
@edifiedlistener Sherri Spelic on x
“prioritizing commercial speech over political speech is itself a political stance, and not necessarily one that we should want our online communication platforms to take.” Tech will neither protect, nor save us, nor look out for our best interests. https://twitter.com/...
@jacob_montg Jacob Montgomery on x
Ads from McDonald's will be ok. Ads for a living wage ... banned. Ads for gun magazines, ok. Ads for gun control... banned. Ads for banks, ok. Ads for bank regulation ... banned. Ads for insurance companies, ok. Ads for MFA... banned. https://twitter.com/...
@annalecta Anna Massoglia on x
Twitter doesn't seem like the social media site that can pull off only selling ads for the status quo. Curious how a political ad ban on dissenting groups buying ads advocating against the same issues in corporate ads plays out for govt ads, especially before incumbent elections.…
@daniellecitron Danielle Citron on x
Thoughtful piece by @WillOremus on the downsides of a complete ban on political ads. We need strong omnibus privacy law and consumer protection laws limiting manipulative micro targeting. @rcalo was prescient with his work on digital market manipulation https://onezero.medium.com…
@emilybell Emily Bell on x
For years platforms have grown through resisting definitions sharper than ‘content’ around the material they distribute , the reckoning around political advertising signals that this is changing...but it isn't going to be easy https://twitter.com/...
@qjurecic @qjurecic on x
This is quite literally the issue that WMATA has been litigating over for the past few years https://twitter.com/...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
The problem with banning political advertising is that almost everything is political. I wrote about how Twitter's widely applauded new policy could backfire: https://onezero.medium.com/...
@herrmanndigital David Herrmann on x
It's almost like Zucks thought about this, and realized it's impossible to ban political advertising since we're in 2019 where everything is political. The controversy isn't worth the 0.5% loss in revenue, cause the headache of what is or isn't political will cost more. https://t…
@alexhern Hern on x
“Facebook is more accountable to US lawmakers and reporters than it is to any other country's” - yet all@of them ignore that there's a world outside america https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
The debate over political ads on Facebook has entirely ignored the more than 90% of FB users that do not live in the United States. I've asked FB again and again to comment on how it's policy will work in non-democratic countries. They have ignored me. https://www.theguardian.com…
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
The reaction to FB staffer Katie Harbath's role in this controversy is a perfect example of this US-centric myopia. Harbath's history working for the GOP is treated as a minor conspiracy by liberal pundits. Much more interesting is her actual work for FB. https://www.theguardian.…
@pranavdixit @pranavdixit on x
“What do Zuckerberg's bromides about democracy mean to Facebook users in Kashmir, where Modi has blocked the internet for weeks? What do his paeans to the free press mean in the Philippines, where Duterte has silenced a journalist working to expose human rights violations?” https…
@davidakaye David Kaye on x
i am totally with you on US-centrism https://twitter.com/...
@zeynep Zeynep Tufekci on x
Agree. Although I would say the problem isn't that they are spreading American values, at least as they state them.
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
I'm not saying that Facebook single-handedly killed democracy in the Phillippines, India and Poland. I'm asking FB to respond to questions about how its policies will work in countries beside the US. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@lmanwaring LarsManwaring on x
“Harbath's [Facebook] staff became ‘de facto campaign workers’ for political campaigns in some of the world's biggest democracies...Narendra Modi in India, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD)...and Andrzej Duda in Poland” https://…
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
This column by @juliacarriew criticizes some of my reporting on Facebook as too focused on the United States but you should read it because it is very good column. https://twitter.com/...
@brooklynmarie Brooke Binkowski on x
Look at the intersection of the rise of authoritarians globally and disinformation around elections brought to you bespoke via Facebook. I'm about to go bang pots and pans in the street, so please read my pinned thread so I don't have to. https://twitter.com/...
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
It's impossible not to notice that democracy has been severely degraded under regimes that Facebook's election team helped achieve power. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
And since Facebook is more accountable to US politicians and the US press than it is to anyone else, I'm asking US politicians and the US press to look beyond Democrats vs Republicans to ask Facebook the harder questions. https://www.theguardian.com/ ...
@juliacarriew Julia Carrie Wong on x
Harbath's team helped Modi become the most popular politician on Facebook. Yesterday Modi dissolved the constitution of Kashmir, where the internet has been blocked for 13-weeks. What use are Zuckerberg's bromides about democracy to Kashmiris? https://www.theguardian.com/ ...

Chronicles