According to an Associated Press story, Facebook plans to end a contentious policy first supported by CEO Mark Zuckerberg that exempted politicians from some moderation rules on its site, according to several news reports. In other words, they’ll be treated just like the rest of us and not allowed to make claims that cannot be substantiated.
This is a sharp reversal that could have global implications. It comes after years of criticism that the social media giant was too deferential to political figures.
Social Media Image (Courtesy of econsultancy.com)
Beginning in 2016, Facebook set a general “newsworthiness exemption”. Generally that policy meant that the speech of political leaders is inherently newsworthy. Therefore, it should be allowed in the public interest based on that newsworthiness, even if offensive, bullying, or otherwise controversial.
But that behind-the-scenes policy began to get attention in 2019 when Facebook Vice President of Global Affairs and Communications Nick Clegg, announced that speech from politicians will be treated as “newsworthy content that should, as a general rule, be seen and heard.” His blog at the time attempted to explain the Facebook position saying, “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.”
But it would appear that times are changing. The policy was first reported by the tech site The Verge and later confirmed by the New York Times and The Washington Post. Facebook has yet to issue a formal statement.
It is unclear whether the move will further muddy the waters of truth, or make them more clear. The social media giant still has to deal with what to do with the account of former President Donald Trump.
Facebook suspended Trump “indefinitely” on Jan. 6, the day of the insurrection against the U.S. Capitol following a Trump rally near the White House. It cited “the risk of further incitement of violence” following the deadly insurrection as the reason. Facebook says it has never used the newsworthiness exemption for any of Trump’s posts.
.
Jan, I agree that certain groups with different agendas should be held to the same standard when sharing information. There was a time when listening to Cronkite, Rather or Brinkley, one could rely that their beliefs were not being commingled with the news. That all changed with Jennings. Journalist imbedding their beliefs into their reporting today is equally destroying our democracy. For a journalist to constantly imbed what they believe as a lie doesn’t make it true or false, it just makes it an opinion. Editorials are designed for that, I think we should agree.
I too wish that we could live in an ideal world where journalists and reporters were somehow free of the biases that we all carry, but lucky for me, I’m smart enough to be able to discern between fact and opinion when reading the news. Please let me know when Fox News , OAN, and the rest of the rightwing trashosphere that build their entire existence on a mountain of lies begins to embrace the bias-free ideals you desire.
Until then, I honestly don’t care about a single minute of coverage on any of those garbage “news organizations”. They’re nothing more than far-right and extreme right propagandists, and I automatically discount everything they say as being the product of lies designed to motivate via disinformation.
This is terrible news for Republican politicians everywhere, but it is great news for the rest of us, even if it does arrive 5 years too late.
“Not allowed to make claims that cannot be substantiated “. What about religious beliefs or lore? Does citing Fox News over MSNBC make it fact and “true” and vice-versa? Will they force users to print a retraction for posting some substantiated fact that was ok at one time but turns out now not to be true? Sounds like a deep hole that just gets deeper. Let’s opt for freedom of speech that does not result in physical harm. Remember the old axiom: “sticks and sones May break my bones, but words can never hurt me”.
Thomas, holding politicians to the same standards of truth as the rest of us seems like a reasonable approach to us. Just because they are running for office doesn’t make every dumb thing they say newsworthy, or true for that matter.
My concern is the “who” decides what is newsworthy or true. Freedom of the press has always belonged to those that own the press, but what one believes is true cannot always be substantiated. Statements that may make you uncomfortable or with which you disagree are not always false and should not be arbitrarily censored.
Thomas, Facebook is a privately-run platform, and it gets to set its own policies. Applying the same standards to politicians to which you or I are held seems reasonable to me.
For clarity regarding your reference to beliefs: What one believes is called an opinion — that does not make it a fact, or newsworthy to “We the people”. I might believe the moon is made of blue cheese –but the moon rocks have proved otherwise. Spending my time trying to convince the rest of you that the blue cheese moon is real is — well — ridiculous.
People can believe outright lies — such as that Trump won the 2020 election — but that does not make that lie true. The repetition of that particular lie is eroding our democracy. Truth is truth — and the facts are the facts.