Skip to main content

Zuckerberg says it’s not Facebook’s job to worry about misleading political ads

Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook won’t be banning political ads, even if they contain false information, during a speech at Georgetown University on Thursday.

The Facebook CEO argued that political advertising is more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else, and added that political ads are an essential form of free speech. “I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians,” he said.

“Given the sensitivity around political ads, I’ve considered whether we should stop allowing political ads altogether,” he added. “ From a business perspective, the controversy certainly isn’t worth the small part of our business they make up … but political ads can be an important part of voice, and banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media chooses to cover.” 

He said that Facebook does not fact-check political ads because he believes that people should see for themselves what politicians are saying. 

“I believe that people should decide for themselves what is credible, not tech companies,” Zuckerberg said. 

Even though Zuckerberg said political ads are welcome on the platform, Facebook added strict new changes to its ad policies in August that will require new disclosures for political ads. Advertisers that run political or social issues ads will have to show government credentials such as a tax-registered organization identification number or a government website domain. Other advertisers without these credentials will have to prove their identity by providing a phone number, business email, or a mail-deliverable address. 

Facebook’s approach to political ads has long been in the spotlight, but has become a major talking point of the Democratic presidential primary. Massachusetts senator and front-runner Elizabeth Warren took out an intentionally false ad on Facebook to draw attention to the issue. Zuckerberg has previously called Warren, who wants to break up the social media giant, an “existential threat” to Facebook.

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 17: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg leads a conversation on free expression at Georgetown University on October 17, 2019 in Washington, DC. The event was hosted by the university’s McCourt School of Public Policy and its Institute of Politics and Public Service (GU Politics). Riccardo Savi/Getty Images for Facebook

The social media giant has received a lot of backlash for how ads and news articles were handled during the 2016 election, particularly in light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and Zuckerberg defended his decisions as the 2020 election approaches.

“I’m committed to the values that we are discussing today, but we won’t always get it right, and I understand that people are concerned about how much control we have,” he said. “I don’t think we should be making such important decisions about speech on our own either.” 

Allison Matyus
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Allison Matyus is a general news reporter at Digital Trends. She covers any and all tech news, including issues around social…
Zuckerberg to tell Congress that Instagram, WhatsApp needed Facebook to succeed
Zuckerberg Testimony Congress

Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg plans to tell Congress Wednesday in a highly anticipated antitrust hearing that Instagram and WhatsApp, both owned by the company, would not have been able to succeed without his company's resources, according to a report in CNBC.

“Facebook has made Instagram and WhatsApp successful as part of our family of apps,” Zuckerberg said in a prepared statement -- which was first obtained by The New York Times.

Read more
Facebook ad boycotters to Congress: Don’t let Zuckerberg off easy
mark zuckerberg thinking

The organizers of the #StopHateforProfit Facebook ad boycott have written a letter to the House Judiciary Committee asking the members to particularly press Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the company’s alleged monopoly over the advertising sphere.
First reported by Axios, the letter suggests several pointed questions that lawmakers could ask: For instance, what percentage of U.S. digital ad spending runs through Facebook and its subsidiaries, what this means for small and medium businesses, and whether there are any alternatives for advertisers to reach certain demographics with the power and efficiency that Facebook uses. The questions seem intended to get at whether Facebook is truly the monopoly it claims not to be.
In June, several hundred major brands, including Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Starbucks, signed on with activist groups led by Common Sense Media, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Anti-Defamation League to remove their ads from Facebook for the month of July. This was an attempt, the groups said, the put pressure on Facebook to change its policies about hate speech and misinformation.

However, Facebook has proven resilient against so many big advertisers leaving its platform. Although MarketWatch reported that its stock tanked briefly in June when the boycott was announced, total ad revenue has remained basically steady throughout the boycott, according to Forbes. The social media giant is set to publish its second-quarter earnings report on Thursday, which should show whether the boycott had any kind of major effect on Facebook's bottom line.

Read more
Zuckerberg denies secret deal with Trump for Facebook freedom
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied rumors of a secret deal that allowed controversial posts by President Donald Trump to remain on the platform.

Zuckerberg, who has recently become more critical of the Trump administration, addressed the rumors of a clandestine deal in an interview with Axios.

Read more