Facebook says it won't back down from allowing lies in political ads but will give users the option to see fewer political ads in their feed and in Instagram

The company was under intense pressure to adjust its policies. But in this presidential election year, no big changes are planned.

New York Times 2020-01-09 Mike Isaac

Context & Ripple Effects

Facebook's refusal to police false political ads extends a position it has held since 2016, when it declared it would not try to influence how people vote even as Zuckerberg clashed with the Trump campaign and its own staffers raised questions about its neutrality during the last US election cycle. The stance survived its first real stress test in the UK, where Facebook declined to fact-check ads from political parties in the December 2019 election while still fact-checking groups like Leave.EU a carve-out that drew the same criticism it now faces at home.

Facing intense pressure entering the 2020 presidential year, the company is offering a user-level control — an option to see fewer political ads in the feed and on Instagram — rather than changing the underlying ad policy. No big changes are planned, making this a pressure-release valve, not a reversal.

First-order effects

Political campaigns and advertisers retain the ability to run ads containing false claims on Facebook and Instagram throughout the 2020 election, with no fact-checking requirement for candidates or parties.
Users who object to political targeting get a feed-level opt-out, giving Facebook a concrete concession to point to while the ad policy itself stays intact.

Second-order effects

Rival platforms and regulators now have a clear reference point: Facebook has staked out the permissive end of political-ad policy, so pressure shifts to whichever platform or lawmaker moves next on election-integrity rules.
The opt-out tool itself becomes the battleground — if ad reach to persuadable voters shrinks for campaigns that rely on broad targeting, political advertisers may push spend toward audiences and platforms without such controls, a dynamic Facebook's later decision to stop accepting new political ads in the week before the election would only deepen.

Third-order effects

The pattern points toward platform neutrality stances being renegotiated election by election rather than settled: Facebook's 2016 neutrality declaration, its UK carve-outs, this opt-out, and the pre-election ad freeze together trace a policy drifting incrementally under pressure without ever adopting fact-checking for politicians.
If user controls become the standard substitute for content rules, the structural question moves from 'what may platforms host' to 'who controls the default feed' — a framing that invites regulation of ad targeting itself rather than ad content.

The trend: Social platforms are responding to political-ad pressure with user-facing controls and timing limits rather than content rules, leaving the underlying question of paid political misinformation unresolved heading into each election cycle.

Discussion

Vox Peter Kafka on x
Facebook will continue letting politicians lie in ads
@shiraovide Shira Ovide on x
Something I don't understand about Facebook's lengthy, tortured decision-making on its political ads policy: The point of founder control is the ability to act decisively. Just not on this. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
facebook makes its stance on political ads and misinformation clear — it's not gonna change https://www.nytimes.com/...
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
I'm disappointed with the Facebook ad decision. Not a smart move for the company; targeting limits and a minimal standard on claims about opponents would represent a defensible, non-partisan and helpful position. From chat with @mathewi on this: https://galley.cjr.org/...
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
It looks like we will need legislation on targeting, as we called for in our election security report from the Stanford Cyber Policy Center: http://electionreport.stanford.edu/ Another discussion with @pkafka: https://www.vox.com/...
@nickconfessore Nick Confessore on x
Big win for Trump. A decision by Facebook to avoid antagonizing the president — and risking breakup — that will have huge consequences in the 2020 campaign. https://twitter.com/...
@guyverhofstadt Guy Verhofstadt on x
Facebook will continue to allow people to make false claims & spread disinformation, believing regulation should come from Governments. Ok, then it is clear to me the EU should regulate & take control. A voluntary approach has failed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@ilyseh Ilyse Hogue on x
Buckle up. The green light to lie has just been set to permanent through 2020. https://twitter.com/...
@danpfeiffer Dan Pfeiffer on x
Facebook's decision is a major boon to the Trump campaign and the rest of the Republicans that view disinformation as a necessary tactic for a victorious strategy. https://twitter.com/...
@justinhendrix Justin Hendrix on x
I think Nick has nailed it. This is just about preserving the status quo and protecting interests (and has little to do with misreadings of John Rawls). Once again, Zuckerberg decides he has no obligation to the integrity of the information ecosystem- only to the bottom line. htt…
@waltshaub Walter Shaub on x
I think it may be a common view that Trump “won.” But the implication of the phrase “risking a breakup” is that the president won by abusing his power to extort a personal concession. Abuse of power for private gain is the definition of corruption, which is unworthy of praise. ht…
@sachabaroncohen Sacha Baron Cohen on x
Outrageous. This is Facebook's idea of change? #MarkZuckerberg, you STILL take politicians' money, STILL refuse to fact check their ads and STILL microtarget their lies to your +2 billion users. Mark, the demagogues of the world thank you! https://www.nbcnews.com/...
@ellenlweintraub Ellen L Weintraub on x
.@Facebook's weak plan suggests the company has no idea how seriously it is hurting democracy. No one is a bigger believer in transparency than I. But here, proposing ‘transparency’ solutions is window-dressing when Facebook needs to be putting out the housefire it has lit. /1 ht…
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
We listened... now kthanksbye. https://twitter.com/...
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
What complete garbage. 2nd graph is what matters here. “The company also said it would not end so-called microtargeting for political ads, which lets campaigns home in on a sliver of Facebook's users — a tactic that critics say is ideal for spreading divisive or misleading info.”…
@brianbeutler Brian Beutler on x
Nick's tweet gets at something Congress should investigate: how explicitly did Trump link allowing him to lie in online ads to allowing Facebook to avoid antitrust action? Trump wanted Zuck to do him a favor, though, and Zuck delivered. https://twitter.com/...
@mmallin Michael Mallin on x
PM at meeting at Facebook: “Maybe the button/link could be called ‘See fewer lies’? Heheh.” Others at meeting: [angry glares] https://twitter.com/...
@rustybrick Barry Schwartz on x
💰💰💰 https://twitter.com/...
@dangainor Dan Gainor on x
Kudos to @Facebook for not restricting ads, like the major media demanded | Facebook won't limit political ad targeting or stop false claims under new ad rules https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@jimparedes Jim on x
https://www.nytimes.com/... FB does not care for the truth. It is poisoning minds by allowing lies on FB as long as people pay.
@tonyromm Tony Romm on x
it will be interesting to see the implementation of these tools. but i do wonder how many people know where even to find the ad transparency screen. historically, and totally anecdotally, i've had to walk so many friends and colleagues through this. https://twitter.com/...
@tonyromm Tony Romm on x
NEW: Facebook won't limit political ad targeting or prohibit them from lying under new ad rules announced today, but will allow users to opt out if they're tired of the 2020 election. tip @techmeme https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@alexstamos Alex Stamos on x
Where I disagree with Boz is that I think limits on targeting for political and issue ads are neutral and fair in the long-run and conducive to healthier democracy. Same with a tightly drawn standard on false claims about opponents. Neither are an attack on Trump.
@jameeljaffer Jameel Jaffer on x
It's a huge indictment of our regulatory system—and maybe also of the First Amendment, as it's currently understood—that a tiny number of people in Silicon Valley could skew elections, and change the course of our democracy, just by tweaking a few algorithms. https://twitter.com/…
@jbenton Joshua Benton on x
The word “earned” here is doing so so so much work https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@kevinroose Kevin Roose on x
Bosworth, who ran FB's ads team in 2016, admitted (for the first time that we know of) that Facebook was responsible for Trump's election, but not because of Russia or misinformation. Instead, he said, Trump just ran an “unbelievable” ad campaign.
@mattgreenfield Matthew Greenfield on x
It seems incredibly irresponsible to publish this self-exculpatory Facebook propaganda without analyzing its dubious assertions. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@donie Donie O'Sullivan on x
Facebook exec @boztank : “Cambridge Analytica is one of the more acute cases I can think of where the details are almost all wrong...” “In practical terms, Cambridge Analytica is a total non-event...” What say you @carolecadwalla @chrisinsilico? https://www.nytimes.com/...
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
This is why Facebook is a clear & present danger to society. The breathtaking audacity of this senior executive who refuses ever to answer my qs. Facebook was found to have acted illegally - not just in US, but UK, Canada, Brazil As exposed by Cambridge Analytica “non-event” http…
@dylanmatt Dylan Matthews on x
This is ... not what the veil of ignorance is @boztank https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@jimmyeatcarbs James Barnes on x
A few thoughts: “He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I've ever seen from any advertiser.” I was there & regardless of feelings on Trump, his ad game was strong. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@danbarker Dan Barker on x
This is so useful from @boztank, a Facebook VP, on why he thinks Facebook actually helped Donald Trump win the election, & the reality of Cambridge Analytica. There is a small error, but the rest is gold. Do read. (link to full Facebook post from here: https://twitter.com/...) ht…
@carolecadwalla Carole Cadwalladr on x
Here he is. Here's the full post. @boztank's previous greatest hit, you may remember, was when he said: “Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.” And then: “It is literally just what we do. We connect people. Period.” https://www.facebook.com/... https:…
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on x
I still think it's interesting how many of the problems of the last few years grew out of tech platforms doing what so many vocal outside advocates wanted: being open, allowing anonymity, giving developers freedom and letting users ‘choose’, trying not to be walled gardens.
@moonalice Roger McNamee on x
Memo from FB's Boz sheds light on company's culture. It is not just that FB people do not seem to understand the notion that “with great power comes great responsibility” ... they often miss the connection btw their actions and downstream consequences. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@andrewmarantz Andrew Marantz on x
Whoa. There's quite a distance between “Making the world more open and connected” and “If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position” https://twitter.com/...
@juddlegum Judd Legum on x
@boztank The internal message was first reported by the NYT but then @boztank posted the whole message publicly. According to the NYT, many other Facebook employees objected to the company's current policy of allowing politicians, including Trump, to lie in ads https://www.nytime…
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
Hot take: stop letting Zuckerberg's proxy influence these convos. Instead ask Bosworth why FB hired and put under NDA the guy who committed what Facebook itself called a fraud in selling Facebook data to Cambridge Analytica. And why he reported to work in Bosworth's AR/VR dept. h…
@jonschweppe Jon Schweppe on x
On the one hand, it's scary they're having these conversations... should the ring of power even be within their grasp? Shouldn't we incinerate it at Mount Doom (#Rewrite230)? On the other hand, thank goodness there is some sanity at Facebook! Can't be said for most of #BigTech. h…
@oliverdarcy Oliver Darcy on x
In internal memo, Facebook exec says he is reminded of a Lord of the Rings moment when he thinks about how scales could be tilted to “avoid the same result” as 2016 election: “She imagines using the power righteously...but knows it will eventually corrupt” https://www.nytimes.com…
@wiczipedia Nina Jankowicz on x
There's a lot to parse in this memo, but this seems particularly... short-sighted? Willfully ignorant? I can't wrap my head around how these sentences are written in succession. https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@anandwrites Anand Giridharadas on x
No company should have such massive tilting power, utterly unregulated, to begin with. https://twitter.com/...
@alecmuffett Alec Muffett on x
@boztank The linked-to Facebook post is well-written and worth reading, especially by those who are reflexively critical of Facebook. https://twitter.com/...
@b_fung Brian Fung on x
Boz cites internal research showing Facebook users see content from 26% more sources than elsewhere. “What happens when you see 26% more content from people you don't agree with? Does it help you empathize with them...? Nope. It makes you dislike them even more.”
@mikeisaac Rat King on x
thing about “Boz” is that he's a...polarizing?....figure inside of facebook long-timer, college TA of Zuckerberg's, very opinionated, VP level of power a lot of insiders disagree with him (and fight openly on internal message boards). But a lot of FBers also believe he's right
@kevinroose Kevin Roose on x
Bosworth, who donated to Clinton in 2016, said that FB's current policies “very well may lead to” Trump's re-election, but that they should stay regardless. “As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that.”
@nytimesbusiness @nytimesbusiness on x
Citing the “Lord of the Rings” franchise, a Facebook executive warned in a memo that any attempt to use the social network against President Trump's re-election campaign would backfire. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@tomgara Tom Gara on x
Interesting lines here from a top FB exec on the Cambridge Analytica story: “one of the more acute cases I can think of where the details are almost all wrong but I think the scrutiny is broadly right.” https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@mollymckew Molly McKew on x
Social media titans think this is all just a game of d&d and we are so screwed. https://twitter.com/...
@sheeraf Sheera Frenkel on x
NEW: The NYT has published an internal memo by longtime FB executive @Boz, in which he warns Facebook not to tip the scals towards Trump in 2020. Come for the discussion about FB's role in democracy, stay for the Lord of the Rings comparison: https://www.nytimes.com/...
@cwarzel Charlie Warzel on x
Reading what my newsroom colleagues have highlighted here, there's a good case to be made for FB to be way more public about what it does and it would be less of a PR disaster than it is at present https://twitter.com/...
@kevinroose Kevin Roose on x
There is a heated debate inside FB about whether the company should exempt politicians from its rules. The group of employees who wrote to Zuckerberg last year are on one side, and Boz (who wrote the notorious “growth is good” memo in 2016) is on the other.

Chronicles