Upon Further Review, Facebook Will Label Politicians’ Posts That Violate Its Rules

As advertisers revolt Facebook commits to flagging ‘newsworthy’ political speech that violates policy		
	Jonathan Shieber

		8 hours

As advertisers revolt Facebook commits to flagging ‘newsworthy’ political speech that violates policy Jonathan Shieber @jshieber 8 hours

Facebook, of these companies, is also the most susceptible to regulatory risk, and is already facing antitrust investigations from the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

On Friday, Facebook's 8.3% decline in stock price wiped out $56 billion in market capitalization.

The consumer goods giant, one of the world's largest advertisers, said on Friday that it would stop running ads on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter in the US for at least the rest of 2020.

Facebook's website says "we remove hate speech, harassment, threats of violence and other content that has the potential to silence others or cause harm". A similar post published to Twitter carried a warning the tweet was "glorifying violence".

"The next frontier is global pressure", Steyer said, adding the campaign hopes to embolden regulators in Europe to take a harder stance on Facebook. Rival Twitter had affixed a fact-checking label to that post.

We still don't know on what grounds will Facebook consider the violating content and how strictly would they observe the post.

The news keeps getting worse for one of the world's most powerful social-media platforms.

Coca-Cola CEO and Chairman, James Quincey, said in his statement that the company was not joining the official boycott like other big brands, but was only pausing ads on all social media platforms globally for the month of July.

First ARM-based Mac coming in 2020
Apple cites performance gains as another advantage of the transition, and so far, we don't have a reason to discount that claim. This is kind of a big deal, especially since Apple is including AMD GPUs with its laptops and desktops.

The Voting Information Center will also contain links to posts that discuss voting, including posts from politicians, with Zuckerberg adding that including these posts is not a judgment on their accuracy, but an attempt to share authoritative information. He said that thee company would label all voting-related posts with a link encouraging users to look at the voter information hub and also added that the company would prohibit hate speech no matter where it came from (read - no matter who it has been posted by).

On 26 June, Zuckerberg announced in an online video a range of measures to tackle hate speech and voter suppression ahead of the USA election later this year.

Facebook now says it is also banning false claims meant to discourage voting, such as stories about federal agents checking the legal status at polling places.

The decision was made by the multi-national firm despite Facebook said it would label potentially harmful or misleading posts left up for their news value. After the 2016 USA presidential election, the federal government determined that Russian Federation and other countries used Facebook and other social media platforms to spread disinformation. Similarly, there are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I'm announcing here today.

"Given our Responsibility Framework and the polarized atmosphere in the U.S., we have decided that starting now through at least the end of the year, we will not run brand advertising in social media newsfeed platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in the U.S.", Unilever said in a statement. "We are respectful of our partners' decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time". They are urging brands to halt advertising on the social network in the month of July, saying it profits off bigotry, racism and violence.

"We simply can no longer trust Facebook's own claims on what they are or are not doing".

Facebook executives have, nevertheless, been adamant that they will not be bullied into producing adjustments they do not want to make, according to the report. "And if Trump tries to bring DOJ forces against social media companies (perhaps raising antitrust concerns) but does so for partisan reasons, then Trump would be violating the First Amendment". They have taken meager steps after each catastrophe where their platform played a part.

Latest News