Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

0
0
Facebook made the rare decision to push back directly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the company, but its attempt to defend itself backfired spectacularly

[ad_1]

U.S. Senator and democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren speaks throughout a marketing campaign occasion in New York Metropolis, U.S. September 17, 2019.REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Fb permits politicians to run advertisements that aren’t topic to third-party fact-checking, and drew ire after operating advertisements from the Trump marketing campaign that made false claims about candidate Joe Biden.
To attract consideration to this coverage, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren deliberately ran advertisements with misinformation on the platform.
Fb then made the bizarre alternative of pushing again publicly at Warren’s criticism in a tweet directed on the candidate over the weekend, however that technique seems to have backfired.
Warren responded to Fb on Twitter, telling the corporate “You are making my level right here … It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies.”
Go to Enterprise Insider’s homepage for extra tales.
Fb seems to be taking a brand new technique to cope with the criticism from one among its highest-profile critics, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren — nevertheless it does not appear to have had the meant impact.
Days after Warren referred to as out Fb’s choice to permit political advertisements containing misinformation by operating one among her personal, the Fb newsroom made the bizarre transfer to tag her in a tweet about how broadcast stations throughout the nation additionally aired the advert in query, an anti-impeachment Trump marketing campaign advert containing debunked misinformation about Biden, on 1000’s of stations.
The interplay is notable as Fb shouldn’t be recognized for participating instantly with presidential candidates on public platforms.

@ewarren seems to be like broadcast stations throughout the nation have aired this advert almost 1,00zero occasions, as required by regulation. FCC doesn’t need broadcast corporations censoring candidates’ speech. We agree it’s higher to let voters—not corporations—resolve. #FCC #candidateuse https://t.co/WlWePjh1vZ — Fb Newsroom (@fbnewsroom)
October 12, 2019

 
Warren had just lately criticized Fb for its coverage that does not permit politicians to swear on the platform, however does permit them to run advertisements that do not go a third-party fact-check. The advert Fb references, and at present permits on its platform, claims “Joe Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion {dollars} in the event that they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s firm.”
Warren, seeing a chance after Fb tagged her within the tweet, seized it.
“You are making my level right here,” she wrote. “It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies,” referring to the debunked advertisements that ran on Fb.

You’re making my level right here. It’s as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies. You may be within the disinformation-for-profit enterprise, or you’ll be able to maintain your self to some requirements. Actually, these requirements had been in your coverage. Why the change? https://t.co/CE766Jpwoo — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren)
October 13, 2019

Warren’s response identified that the advert violated Fb’s personal misinformation insurance policies, which prohibit data debunked by fact-checkers. Since 2016, Fb, has had a “newsworthiness exemption,” through which it permit content material that violates neighborhood requirements if the corporate consider that “the general public curiosity in seeing it outweighs the danger of hurt.” Notably, this exemption doesn’t apply to swearing, and Fb’s insurance policies for advertisements aren’t as strict as its insurance policies for the remainder of its content material. Fb eliminated one of many Trump marketing campaign advertisements, which referred to Biden as a “b–th,” as a result of it violated profanity requirements for advertisements on the platform.
In response to the tweets between Warren and Fb, some Twitter customers identified that Fb was evaluating itself to broadcast networks, that are regulated by the FCC and legally chargeable for content material that they submit — one thing Fb at present is not on the hook for.

Wow, @fbnewsroom is evaluating Fb to federally regulated networks. In the event that they wish to go that route, they’ll wish to be reminded broadcasters are additionally chargeable for the content material that seems on their networks. https://t.co/rTTLtXKiBa — Edmund Lee (@edmundlee)
October 13, 2019

 
With overwhelmingly destructive responses, Fb’s tweet didn’t appear to garner the response Fb hoped for. Many replied to the tweet by declaring that Fb’s response evaluating its practices to these of a broadcast community does not make sense (Fb has made painstaking efforts lately to inform the tech press and regulators it is not a media firm). Others stated they wish to delete Fb.
Fb didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark.

Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

Fb permits politicians to run advertisements which are…
Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

Tech,Elizabeth Warren,Trump,Trump 2020,2020 Presidential Election,Fb,Twitter,Joe Biden,Misinformation

Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

2019-10-14T19:07:54+02:00
2019-10-14T17:05:07+02:00
2019-10-14T19:13:09+02:00

https://static4.businessinsider.de/picture/5da4acd3e94e8673000b8187-500-250/facebook-made-the-rare-decision-to-push-back-directly-at-elizabeth-warren-and-her-criticism-of-the-company-but-its-attempt-to-defend-itself-backfired-spectacularly.jpg

BusinessInsiderDe

https://www.businessinsider.de/belongings/pictures/logos/og-image-logo.png

Fb permits politicians to run advertisements that aren’t topic to third-party fact-checking, and drew ire after operating advertisements from the Trump marketing campaign that made false claims about candidate Joe Biden.
To attract consideration to this coverage, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren deliberately ran advertisements with misinformation on the platform.
Fb then made the bizarre alternative of pushing again publicly at Warren’s criticism in a tweet directed on the candidate over the weekend, however that technique seems to have backfired.
Warren responded to Fb on Twitter, telling the corporate “You are making my level right here … It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies.”
Go to Enterprise Insider’s homepage for extra tales.

Fb seems to be taking a brand new technique to cope with the criticism from one among its highest-profile critics, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren — nevertheless it does not appear to have had the meant impact.
Days after Warren referred to as out Fb’s choice to permit political advertisements containing misinformation by operating one among her personal, the Fb newsroom made the bizarre transfer to tag her in a tweet about how broadcast stations throughout the nation additionally aired the advert in query, an anti-impeachment Trump marketing campaign advert containing debunked misinformation about Biden, on 1000’s of stations.
The interplay is notable as Fb shouldn’t be recognized for participating instantly with presidential candidates on public platforms.
Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1183162508846215168?ref_src=twsrcpercent5Etfw @ewarren seems to be like broadcast stations throughout the nation have aired this advert almost 1,00zero occasions, as required by regulation. FCC does not need broadcast corporations censoring candidates’ speech. We agree it is higher to let voters—not corporations—resolve. #FCC #candidateuse https://t.co/WlWePjh1vZ
 
Warren had just lately criticized Fb for its coverage that does not permit politicians to swear on the platform, however does permit them to run advertisements that do not go a third-party fact-check. The advert Fb references, and at present permits on its platform, claims “Joe Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion {dollars} in the event that they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s firm.”
Warren, seeing a chance after Fb tagged her within the tweet, seized it.
“You are making my level right here,” she wrote. “It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies,” referring to the debunked advertisements that ran on Fb.
Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1183189927246340096?ref_src=twsrcpercent5Etfw You are making my level right here. It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies. You may be within the disinformation-for-profit enterprise, or you’ll be able to maintain your self to some requirements. Actually, these requirements had been in your coverage. Why the change? https://t.co/CE766Jpwoo
Warren’s response identified that the advert violated Fb’s personal misinformation insurance policies, which prohibit data debunked by fact-checkers. Since 2016, Fb, has had a “newsworthiness exemption,” through which it permit content material that violates neighborhood requirements if the corporate consider that “the general public curiosity in seeing it outweighs the danger of hurt.” Notably, this exemption doesn’t apply to swearing, and Fb’s insurance policies for advertisements aren’t as strict as its insurance policies for the remainder of its content material. Fb eliminated one of many Trump marketing campaign advertisements, which referred to Biden as a “b–th,” as a result of it violated profanity requirements for advertisements on the platform.
In response to the tweets between Warren and Fb, some Twitter customers identified that Fb was evaluating itself to broadcast networks, that are regulated by the FCC and legally chargeable for content material that they submit — one thing Fb at present is not on the hook for.
Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1183366817831641088?ref_src=twsrcpercent5Etfw Wow, @fbnewsroom is evaluating Fb to federally regulated networks. In the event that they wish to go that route, they will wish to be reminded broadcasters are additionally chargeable for the content material that seems on their networks. https://t.co/rTTLtXKiBa
 
With overwhelmingly destructive responses, Fb’s tweet didn’t appear to garner the response Fb hoped for. Many replied to the tweet by declaring that Fb’s response evaluating its practices to these of a broadcast community does not make sense (Fb has made painstaking efforts lately to inform the tech press and regulators it is not a media firm). Others stated they wish to delete Fb.
Fb didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark.
worldwide

Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

Fb permits politicians to run advertisements which are…
Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

Tech,Elizabeth Warren,Trump,Trump 2020,2020 Presidential Election,Fb,Twitter,Joe Biden,Misinformation

Fb made the uncommon choice to push again instantly at Elizabeth Warren and her criticism of the corporate, however its try to defend itself backfired spectacularly

2019-10-14T19:07:54+02:00
2019-10-14T19:13:09+02:00

https://static4.businessinsider.de/picture/5da4acd3e94e8673000b8187-500-250/facebook-made-the-rare-decision-to-push-back-directly-at-elizabeth-warren-and-her-criticism-of-the-company-but-its-attempt-to-defend-itself-backfired-spectacularly.jpg

BusinessInsiderDe

https://www.businessinsider.de/belongings/pictures/logos/og-image-logo.png

Fb permits politicians to run advertisements that aren’t topic to third-party fact-checking, and drew ire after operating advertisements from the Trump marketing campaign that made false claims about candidate Joe Biden.
To attract consideration to this coverage, Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren deliberately ran advertisements with misinformation on the platform.
Fb then made the bizarre alternative of pushing again publicly at Warren’s criticism in a tweet directed on the candidate over the weekend, however that technique seems to have backfired.
Warren responded to Fb on Twitter, telling the corporate “You are making my level right here … It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies.”
Go to Enterprise Insider’s homepage for extra tales.

Fb seems to be taking a brand new technique to cope with the criticism from one among its highest-profile critics, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren — nevertheless it does not appear to have had the meant impact.
Days after Warren referred to as out Fb’s choice to permit political advertisements containing misinformation by operating one among her personal, the Fb newsroom made the bizarre transfer to tag her in a tweet about how broadcast stations throughout the nation additionally aired the advert in query, an anti-impeachment Trump marketing campaign advert containing debunked misinformation about Biden, on 1000’s of stations.
The interplay is notable as Fb shouldn’t be recognized for participating instantly with presidential candidates on public platforms.
Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1183162508846215168?ref_src=twsrcpercent5Etfw @ewarren seems to be like broadcast stations throughout the nation have aired this advert almost 1,00zero occasions, as required by regulation. FCC does not need broadcast corporations censoring candidates’ speech. We agree it is higher to let voters—not corporations—resolve. #FCC #candidateuse https://t.co/WlWePjh1vZ
 
Warren had just lately criticized Fb for its coverage that does not permit politicians to swear on the platform, however does permit them to run advertisements that do not go a third-party fact-check. The advert Fb references, and at present permits on its platform, claims “Joe Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion {dollars} in the event that they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s firm.”
Warren, seeing a chance after Fb tagged her within the tweet, seized it.
“You are making my level right here,” she wrote. “It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies,” referring to the debunked advertisements that ran on Fb.
Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1183189927246340096?ref_src=twsrcpercent5Etfw You are making my level right here. It is as much as you whether or not you’re taking cash to advertise lies. You may be within the disinformation-for-profit enterprise, or you’ll be able to maintain your self to some requirements. Actually, these requirements had been in your coverage. Why the change? https://t.co/CE766Jpwoo
Warren’s response identified that the advert violated Fb’s personal misinformation insurance policies, which prohibit data debunked by fact-checkers. Since 2016, Fb, has had a “newsworthiness exemption,” through which it permit content material that violates neighborhood requirements if the corporate consider that “the general public curiosity in seeing it outweighs the danger of hurt.” Notably, this exemption doesn’t apply to swearing, and Fb’s insurance policies for advertisements aren’t as strict as its insurance policies for the remainder of its content material. Fb eliminated one of many Trump marketing campaign advertisements, which referred to Biden as a “b–th,” as a result of it violated profanity requirements for advertisements on the platform.
In response to the tweets between Warren and Fb, some Twitter customers identified that Fb was evaluating itself to broadcast networks, that are regulated by the FCC and legally chargeable for content material that they submit — one thing Fb at present is not on the hook for.
Tweet Embed: //twitter.com/mims/statuses/1183366817831641088?ref_src=twsrcpercent5Etfw Wow, @fbnewsroom is evaluating Fb to federally regulated networks. In the event that they wish to go that route, they will wish to be reminded broadcasters are additionally chargeable for the content material that seems on their networks. https://t.co/rTTLtXKiBa
 
With overwhelmingly destructive responses, Fb’s tweet didn’t appear to garner the response Fb hoped for. Many replied to the tweet by declaring that Fb’s response evaluating its practices to these of a broadcast community does not make sense (Fb has made painstaking efforts lately to inform the tech press and regulators it is not a media firm). Others stated they wish to delete Fb.
Fb didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark.
worldwide

[ad_2]

Supply hyperlink