Facebook will not take any action against the network of fake websites that issues messages in favor of the PP and yesterday revealed THE COUNTRY: “We have investigated thoroughly these ads and pages, and do not violate our policies,” says a company spokesman. “We continue to work to increase transparency on Facebook: our requirements for the ads already make it clear to the individual that is behind the message, who has seen, and includes a ‘paid for’ as a warning,” he adds.
The consequences for this network for now are scarce because eight of those pages were already suspended. Had doubts about if I had closed Facebook or the manager itself. It is now clear that he did who was responsible for those pages, which were shutting down after this newspaper started to ask.
But the message Facebook is nevertheless clear: to create fake websites to influence election campaigns is lawful. The intention of Facebook is to allow that each can decide on their own what to believe of what is told in a announcement. The only obligation assumed by the company is obligate to disclose who pays for that message so that the user knows.
Facebook is embroiled in a huge controversy in the united States for its decision to allow politicians to lie in their ads on the social network, without any fact-checker external warning.
The message from Facebook is clear: create fake websites to influence election campaigns is lawful
The obligation to disclose who pays for an ad, however, is relatively easy to avoid, more in a run of a few days as an election campaign in Spain. The detection and analysis of those accounts can take a while to go beyond the date of the elections, so that its value vanishes. The pages yesterday revealed THE COUNTRY are managed by individuals that is not always easy or possible to link to a party. The party allegedly most favored you can always say, well, you know nothing about.
The pages revealed promoted in addition to the abstention, something that is apparently legal. In the united States there is a historic battle to fight against the suppression of the vote: post a lie about what documents are required for voting or where it is done. The african-american community in the united States has received often messages as well. Facebook does not allow it on their platform. But ask for abstentions, although it is posing as another, is not a reason of violation of policies.
The only reason that Facebook could suspend a page or an ad campaign would, according to its policy, the breach of the local law. Just what would you do after receiving the petition of an organism valid. The company, therefore, does not assess whether the activist of a party is attempting to pretend to be of another to deceive.
The only obligation is self-imposed of Facebook with its users is to reveal who is behind each ad. Then it is the task of journalists, researchers and public bodies to find potential violations. Again, in the terms narrow of a campaign it is difficult to have all of this happen fast enough. It is a game of cat and mouse that some advisers cunning can be used. Each must decide if it’s worth it.
In his testimony before the Congress of the united States two weeks ago, the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, said: “In most cases, in a democracy, I think that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians say they by the could or could not vote and judge your character for themselves”. The problem with this statement is that it is not always clear which politician is behind every message. Facebook wants to save you make that decision and leave it in the hands of the society.
This decision of Facebook exposes the increasingly central role played by the social network in a few elections. Yesterday’s announcement of Twitter does not allow political advertising on its network leaves the company of Zuckerberg more alone in this battle. It is also difficult to think that the income generated by this activity –very scarce in Spain– be the central motive of the decision of Facebook.