Facebook has faced ongoing criticism for allowing political ads that contain false or misleading information. Despite calls to ban such ads, Facebook has resisted taking action. So why does Facebook continue to allow fake ads on its platform?
Opening Questions
Here are some key questions to consider when examining Facebook’s policy on political ads:
- What are Facebook’s stated reasons for allowing fake ads?
- How does Facebook define issue ads versus political ads?
- What impact could banning fake ads have on Facebook’s business model?
- Is Facebook shirking its social responsibility by allowing fake ads?
Facebook’s Stated Reasons
Facebook has put forth several arguments for continuing to run political ads that may contain misinformation:
- Free speech – CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly argued that political ads are an important part of free expression, and therefore Facebook should not police their content or fact-check them.
- Newsworthiness – Facebook considers ads run by politicians or political parties to be newsworthy content that should remain available for public viewing.
- Logistical challenges – Reviewing the veracity of the high volume of political ads would be impractical and could lead to claims of bias or censorship.
Essentially, Facebook believes limiting the spread of misinformation in political ads poses too great a risk to free speech and fair elections. The company prefers to rely on the media and public scrutiny to hold politicians accountable.
Defining Issue Ads vs. Political Ads
Facebook maintains different policies for issue ads versus directly election-related ads:
- Issue ads – Ads advocating for legislative issues, like climate change or immigration. Facebook fact-checks these and bans proven misinformation.
- Political ads – Ads run by candidates and parties explicitly advocating for votes. Facebook does not fact-check claims in these ads.
However, critics argue Facebook’s definitions are murky and allow too much misleading content. For example, ads making false claims about a political candidate’s record would technically be an issue ad and subject to fact-checking under Facebook’s policies. But in practice, enforcement is inconsistent.
Impact on Facebook’s Business Model
Facebook is first and foremost an advertising company. Political ads have become a significant revenue stream, generating hundreds of millions in sales. Some key financial impacts if Facebook banned political ads include:
- Loss of political ad revenue, estimated at $250-500 million in 2020 alone.
- Potential loss of other ad revenue if banning political ads causes brands to pull spending.
- Increased costs to hire third party fact-checkers and content moderators.
Facebook is clearly reluctant to jeopardize its ad business, which makes up 98% of its $86 billion in annual revenue.
Facebook Annual Revenue Breakdown
| Revenue Source | Amount (billions) | Percent of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Advertising | $84.2 | 98% |
| Other revenue | $2.2 | 2% |
| Total revenue | $86.4 | 100% |
Losing any chunk of its ad business poses a threat to Facebook’s model. So the incentives skew towards maintaining the status quo on political ads, even if it means allowing some misinformation.
Is Facebook Shirking Responsibility?
The debate around Facebook’s role in spreading misinformation often comes back to the question of responsibility. As one of the world’s largest and most influential communication platforms, does Facebook have an ethical duty to society that supersedes profits?
Some arguments that Facebook is shirking its societal responsibilities:
- Facebook connects billions worldwide – it has immense power to shape opinions and should wield that responsibly.
- Allowing provable lies in political ads undermines democracy and truth.
- Misinformation campaigns on Facebook have been linked to real world harm. Claims that immigrants spread disease, for example.
- Other TV, radio, and online platforms ban blatantly false political ads. Facebook should uphold similar standards.
However, Facebook argues it is a neutral platform, and that limiting speech – even false speech – would make it a publisher rather than open platform. In Facebook’s view, the bigger risk is censorship.
Overall, Facebook allowing demonstrably false political ads reflects its prioritization of profits and its limited view of corporate social responsibility. Unless public opinion sways the company, it appears Facebook will continue following the ad money rather than adopting stricter policies against misinformation.
Expert Perspectives
Here are some opinions on Facebook’s political ad policy from legal and tech experts:
Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law Professor
“Facebook has every right, as a company, to refuse ads with false claims. Protecting a candidate’s ability to make dubious claims in political ads has little public value.”
Nina Jankowicz, Disinformation Fellow at Wilson Center
“Facebook is applying a 20th-century understanding of free expression to a 21st-century problem. Misinformation spread online has quantifiable, negative impacts on societies.”
Jameel Jaffer, Columbia Law Professor
“The digital public square doesn’t function like a street corner. Facebook and other tech companies have enormous power to amplify some speakers and silence others.”
These experts emphasize that Facebook is not bound by the First Amendment like government, and has flexibility to ban forms of harmful speech like misinformation without violating free expression principles.
Looking Ahead
While Facebook currently allows fake ads, looking ahead there are some potential actions that could change their stance:
- Sustained public pressure and PR backlash.
- Regulation – lawmakers are eyeing rules that could force Facebook’s hand.
- Advertiser boycott threatening revenue.
- Employees pushing for change within the company.
Facebook is unlikely to voluntarily give up a revenue source. But with enough external pressure from governments, shareholders, advertisers and the public, they may calculate that the brand damage from misinformation is too high. Until then, critics will continue making the case that the world’s largest social network has a duty to keep lies out of political discourse.
Conclusion
In summary, Facebook continues to allow demonstrably false political ads for the following reasons:
- Avoiding damage to its ad-based business model.
- Justifying it as a free speech position.
- Unwillingness to bear the logistical burdens of political ad vetting.
However, there are growing calls for Facebook to reconsider its stance. Critics highlight the real world harms of misinformation, and argue Facebook has an ethical responsibility as a globally dominant platform. But change is unlikely without meaningful external pressure. The profit motives incentivizing Facebook’s current policy appear to still outweigh public scrutiny.