![](\"https:\/\/i.ytimg.com\/vi\/mZaec_mlq9M\/maxresdefault.jpg\")
<\/p>\nBy: Trevor Vonu<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
With election season looming on the horizon, tensions surrounding Facebook\u2019s allowance of un-censored political advertisements continue to grow in Washington.[1]<\/a> During a speech at Georgetown University earlier this month, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg vocalized his opinion on the matter by claiming to prioritize his commitment to freedom of speech and expression over instituting an aggressive policy to police information advertised on the social media platform.[2]<\/a> Zuckerberg stated, \u201cSome people believe that giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing people together. I am here today because I believe we must continue to stand for free expression.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Zuckerberg recently traveled to Capitol Hill where he fielded questions from legislators regarding the company\u2019s policy to refrain from fact-checking political advertisements.[4]<\/a> During a Q & A with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, Zuckerberg recognized this policy creates the potential for political candidates to spread false information, however, Zuckerberg remained steadfast in his position that it would be improper to censor the information presented in these advertisements.[5]<\/a> That said, many critics believe Zuckerberg\u2019s decision is primary fueled by the goal to maintain advertisement revenue.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n Most recently on October 29th<\/sup>, Senator Mark Warner, D-VA sent a letter to Zuckerberg asking him to reconsider his decision to leave political advertisements unchecked for truthfulness. Warner is one of Congress\u2019 most active legislators working to regulate \u2018Big Tech\u2019 companies.[7]<\/a> In his letter, Warner criticizes Zuckerberg\u2019s position and justifications, stating,<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In defending its refusal to remove false political advertisements by candidates, Facebook has pointed to provisions of the Communications Act that prohibit broadcast licensees from rejecting or modifying candidate ads, regardless of their accuracy . . . This comparison is inapt. A more appropriate comparison for a platform like Facebook would be cable networks, which (like Facebook) face no such prohibition on rejecting demonstrably false advertisements from political candidates \u2013 nor are they bound by related obligations such as rules on advertising rates and reasonable access requirements.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Letter from Sen. Mark Warner to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Chief Exec. Officer (Oct. 28, 2019).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Despite receiving substantial pushback from legislators on Capitol Hill, Zuckerberg recently reinforced his position on the company\u2019s policy regarding political advertisements.[8]<\/a> During Facebook\u2019s third-quarter earnings call on October 30th<\/sup>, Zuckerberg responded to those criticizing his decision not to fact check political advertisements, saying, \u201cI believe strongly and I believe that history supports that free expression has been important for driving progress and building more inclusive societies around the world.\u201d[9]<\/a> During Facebook\u2019s earnings call, Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey released his own announcement, stating the company will \u201cstop all political advertising on Twitter globally.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/p>\n This response is uncharacteristic of Zuckerberg and is quite different from his past responses to criticism, most notably the debacle involving Cambridge Analytica.[11]<\/a> In the past, Zuckerberg apologized and pledged to make the necessary improvements to Facebook.[12]<\/a> Now, amid widespread criticism, Zuckerberg is sticking to his guns and doubling down on his position on the matter.[13]<\/a> It will be interesting to see if Zuckerberg retreats on this position in the coming months. The Federal government is pleading with Zuckerberg to reconsider, however, with no enacted law regulating this specific subject matter, the decision is completely up to the company and its position will likely change only under two circumstances.[14]<\/a> First, the decision may change if Congress, or a regulatory agency, passes a law requiring Facebook to fact check all political advertisements.[15]<\/a> Alternatively, Facebooks policy on the matter may change if the current policy leads to substantial user dissatisfaction and lower share prices.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Therese Poletti, Zuckerberg stands defiant on political ads, swinging \u2018free expression\u2019 at critics like a hammer<\/em>. Market Watch (Oct. 30, 2019, 8:44 PM), https:\/\/www.marketwatch.com\/story\/zuckerberg-stands-defiant-on-political-ads-swinging-free-expression-at-critics-like-a-hammer-2019-10-30.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ryan Tracy, Facebook\u2019s Mark Zuckerberg defends free expression, will allow political adds without fact checking. Market Watch (Oct. 17, 2019 2:54 PM), https:\/\/www.marketwatch.com\/story\/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-defends-free-expression-will-allow-political-adds-without-fact-checking-2019-10-17.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Salvador Rodriguez, Watch video of AOC grilling Zuckerberg on Facebook allowing lies in political ads<\/em>, CNBC (Oct. 24, 2019, 4:57 PM), https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2019\/10\/23\/aoc-grills-zuckerberg-over-facebook-allowing-lies-in-political-ads.html.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n [6]<\/a> See <\/em>Poletti, supra<\/em> note 1.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> William Feuer, Sen. Warner asks Mark Zuckerberg to reconsider Facebook\u2019s policy that allows false political ads<\/em>, CNBC (Oct. 29, 2019, 10:59 AM), https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2019\/10\/29\/sen-warner-asks-zuckerberg-to-reconsider-false-political-facebook-ads.html.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> See <\/em>Poletti, supra<\/em> note 1.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Kate Conger, Twitter Will Ban All Political Ads, C.E.O. Jack Dorsey Says<\/em>, New York Times (Oct. 30, 2019), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/10\/30\/technology\/twitter-political-ads-ban.html.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Ashley Smith-Roberts, Facebook, Fake News, and the First Amendment<\/em>, 95 Denv. L. Rev. 118, 118-19 (2018).<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Therese Poletti, Zuckerberg appears to be done apologizing for Facebook and taking Tim Cooks<\/em>, Market Watch (Oct 31, 2018, 6:59 AM), https:\/\/www.marketwatch.com\/story\/zuckerberg-appears-to-be-done-apologizing-for-facebook-and-taking-tim-cooks-punches-2018-10-30.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> See <\/em>Poletti, supra<\/em> note 1.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> See <\/em>Feuer, supra <\/em>note 6.<\/p>\n