Facebook will not fact-check President Trump’s posts according to CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Mark and Facebook will probably get trashed by the left for this but it is the right move on so many levels.
And remember, during the entire Mueller hysteria the left trashed Facebook and Mark for even letting conservative news outlets offer their view of the scandal on his platform.
Zuckerberg stood for free speech then and was rewarded as the only people who got the FISA abuse scandal correct, which should be the biggest scandal in history were the conservative outlets.Literally, if you were watching CNN and MSNBC you didn’t get the truth while conservative outlets branded as nutjobs were the ones telling the truth and were ultimately proven right.
Look, Mark was right before so he should get the benefit of the doubt this time.
“We have a different policy than Twitter on this,” Mark Zuckerberg told Fox News’ Dana Perino on Wednesday as he stood tall for free speech.
“I believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. I think in general, private companies shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that,” he added.
Nick Clegg, Facebook VP said of the controversy:
“Speaking at the Atlantic Festival in Washington DC today, I set out the measures that Facebook is taking to prevent outside interference in elections and Facebook’s attitude towards political speech on the platform. This is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression and respect for the democratic process, as well as the fact that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.
You can read the full text of my speech below, but as I know there are often lots of questions about our policies and the way we enforce them I thought I’d share the key details.
Fact-Checking Political Speech
We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. We don’t believe, however, that it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That’s why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review. However, when a politician shares previously debunked content including links, videos and photos, we plan to demote that content, display related information from fact-checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements. You can find more about the third-party fact-checking program and content eligibility here.
Facebook has had a newsworthiness exemption since 2016. This means that if someone makes a statement or shares a post which breaks our community standards we will still allow it on our platform if we believe the public interest in seeing it outweighs the risk of harm.
Today, I announced that from now on we will treat speech from politicians as newsworthy content that should, as a general rule, be seen and heard. However, in keeping with the principle that we apply different standards to content for which we receive payment, this will not apply to ads – if someone chooses to post an ad on Facebook, they must still fall within our Community Standards and our advertising policies.
When we make a determination as to newsworthiness, we evaluate the public interest value of the piece of speech against the risk of harm. When balancing these interests, we take a number of factors into consideration, including country-specific circumstances, like whether there is an election underway or the country is at war; the nature of the speech, including whether it relates to governance or politics; and the political structure of the country, including whether the country has a free press. In evaluating the risk of harm, we will consider the severity of the harm.
Content that has the potential to incite violence, for example, may pose a safety risk that outweighs the public interest value. Each of these evaluations will be holistic and comprehensive in nature, and will account for international human rights standards.”