Facebook Policy

“This ad is allowed to run on Facebook but, before it can run, we ask that they comply with our policy related to issues of national importance by authorizing and then including a ‘paid for’ by disclaimer on the ad,” Facebook said.

I agree with the “idea” of this policy. On paper it sounds good and workable. The idea behind it is if you are going to place a political ad, we the public would like to know whose placing it there. Why? Political advertisements are not always straight-forward, meaning that it’s not just a representation of the facts but sometimes a manipulation of the facts. If one is upfront with who they are chances are they will be more transparent with truth.

To be honest most advertisements are manipulations of truths or want-to-be truths. Take for instance those ads about cleaning showers and tubs with cleaning agents as the actor sprays on the product and oh so simply wipes off all the grime, film, and dirt and we watch it wash down the drain. Why doesn’t it work so easily for me when I use their product? Because the scene has been manipulated for it to work easily because that’s the promise of the product. Much about advertising is trickery in one form or another, kind of like telling small white lies. When it’s big lies being told then we take legal action for fraud. Amazing how much we are manipulated and how much money is spent on manipulating us. Sometimes we are given a disclaimer that the persons in the ad is an actor just acting like they are a real person who uses this product.

What Facebook wants in political ads on their platform is a disclaimer about who is paying for the ad. Here is what Facebook further states about this policy:

“We are committed to transparency and have many different types of pages, including films, that go through these additional steps to run ads related to issues of national importance.”

Ah, and what is the definition of “issues of national importance?” It sounds so innocent but the phrase is really a “one trick pony” phrasing meaning “political”. There is so much today that is put into the political category that the censors, and they are censors, at Facebook follow a political slant, typically a left or Democrat slant that even Zuckerman admits is there.

I bring this up because of this story: “An ad for Dennis Prager’s documentary “No Safe Spaces,” which focuses on the stifling of free speech on college campuses, has been rejected by Facebook because the buyer of the ad will not identify as partisan.” From what I gather about the movie (disclaimer I haven’t seen it) by Prager the storyline is that the loss of free speech on our college campuses is transitioning into our lives outside colleges and is an attempt to help us understand what’s happening and how to protect our declining 1stAmendment right. And please don’t pretend it’s not happening because if you are aware enough to have an opinion you’re aware enough to know it’s happening.

Again, because I haven’t seen the movie and am taking my assumption of what it’s about from this story, it’s not an attack on liberals but a “here’s what’s happening”. Even so it can be classified as political. So what’s the problem with Facebook rejecting an ad bya“California charter school [that] wanted to advertise a screening of “No Safe Spaces” on its campus, only to have Facebook demand that the school identify as partisan. Since the school simply wanted to focus on the movie’s free speech angle and had no political affiliation, they refused to comply with Facebook’s demands.”

The disclaimer Facebook wanted was for the school to say of themselves we are of this political persuasion so people looking at this ad would say, “Okay, so they’re right-wingers or whatever and want to manipulate us into seeing this “right-wing” movie.

Here is the rub with their policy: what if, in this case, the school does not identify with any political persuasion, as proven by their history and just want to raise the issue in this film for people to talk about. The policy cannot handle a non-political stand on a supposedly political issue of national importance. Everyone is assumed to be partisan. But how is free speech a partisan issue? Don’t Democrats believe in free speech as much as Republicans as much as Independents as much as Libertarians? The only ones who don’t are socialists and communists and progressives.

We all know Facebook is biased because they tell us they are and supposedly want to change that but this case shows us when you get into censorship you just dig holes for yourself all around you. Facebook censors already don’t like Dennis Prager because he is a conservative and have censored him before. This is just a new game they are playing on “disclaimers” because the censors cannot handle someone who is actually not partisan and they force us all to be partisan.

Some of us actually see issues of national importance as issues and not politics. Yes they typically have political implications but the implications go in all directions, not just one way because it’s the issue that’s at issue. We get into lots of trouble when we filter everything through politics.

The article that brought this up can be found HERE. Oh, and my disclaimer is that I am right of center politically but I am a free thinker beholding to no political philosophy.