Facebook 'Repeatedly and Intentionally' Violated Washington's Political Ad Law, Judge Rules (geekwire.com) 49
The Seattle Times reports:
Meta, Facebook's parent company, repeatedly and intentionally violated Washington campaign-ad transparency law and must pay penalties yet to be determined, a judge ruled Friday.
The court also denied Meta's attempt to invalidate Washington's decades-old transparency law, according to Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office has repeatedly sued Meta over its failure to abide by the law.... In a statement, Ferguson said his office defeated Facebook's "cynical attempt" to gut Washington's campaign-finance transparency law. "On behalf of the people of Washington, I challenge Facebook to accept this decision and do something very simple — follow the law," he said.
Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Washington's transparency law, originally passed by voters through an initiative in 1972, requires ad sellers such as Meta to disclose the names and addresses of political ad buyers, the targets of such ads and the total number of views of each ad.
Meta says that rather than comply with the law, Facebook has stopped serving campaign ads altogether in Washington, GeekWire reports, "after determining that the company wouldn't be able to reasonably comply with the law."
But "The current suit against Meta, filed in April 2020, asserts that the company continued to accept political ads in the state after promising to stop." The judge will now consider fines and a potential injunction against the social media giant, reported Eli Sanders, a Seattle journalist who covered the dispute for years for The Stranger newspaper and more recently in his Wild West newsletter....
In court filings, Meta called Washington state "an outlier," arguing that the disclosure law violates the First Amendment by unfairly targeting political speech, and imposing onerous timelines for disclosing what Meta considers unreasonable degrees of detail to people who request information about political ads.
The court also denied Meta's attempt to invalidate Washington's decades-old transparency law, according to Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office has repeatedly sued Meta over its failure to abide by the law.... In a statement, Ferguson said his office defeated Facebook's "cynical attempt" to gut Washington's campaign-finance transparency law. "On behalf of the people of Washington, I challenge Facebook to accept this decision and do something very simple — follow the law," he said.
Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Washington's transparency law, originally passed by voters through an initiative in 1972, requires ad sellers such as Meta to disclose the names and addresses of political ad buyers, the targets of such ads and the total number of views of each ad.
Meta says that rather than comply with the law, Facebook has stopped serving campaign ads altogether in Washington, GeekWire reports, "after determining that the company wouldn't be able to reasonably comply with the law."
But "The current suit against Meta, filed in April 2020, asserts that the company continued to accept political ads in the state after promising to stop." The judge will now consider fines and a potential injunction against the social media giant, reported Eli Sanders, a Seattle journalist who covered the dispute for years for The Stranger newspaper and more recently in his Wild West newsletter....
In court filings, Meta called Washington state "an outlier," arguing that the disclosure law violates the First Amendment by unfairly targeting political speech, and imposing onerous timelines for disclosing what Meta considers unreasonable degrees of detail to people who request information about political ads.
Meanwhile... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Typical leftist dodge, ignore the evidence if you don't like the source. The links are there to the government documents clearly showing that the Biden White House was directing who and what Facebook should censor.
I looked at the source, and I looked at the links.
The links show that employees of the administration talked with Facebook. Talking with Facebook is not "censorship".
Guess what? Trump talked directly with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. ("“One specific critique that I've seen is that there are a lot of people who've said that maybe we're too sympathetic or too close in some way to the Trump administration,'' Zuckerberg said, admitting he talked to Trump from 'time to time'." Source: https://www.axios.c [axios.com]
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
It really is a bunch of bullshit.
So, apparently the folks at the White House are continuing the ongoing effort to make some kind of headway on misinformation.
They define misinformation as things that have been shown conclusively to be false or mostly false by a preponderance of fact checkers not affiliated with the White House.
Seems pretty benign, really.
So on to the real question here. Why is an attempt at damping down megaphones for people who spread knowingly false information "censoring conservative voices"?
The only conclusion I can come here, is that you're openly admitting that "conservative voices" are currently leveraging a large misinformation campaign to achieve their political goals. I'd like to believe that's not true.
Re: Meanwhile... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Conservatives Dominate Social Media
Because that's who uses it most. Remember Section 230? It's the users who submit material, select what to read and what to up/down vote. Or else the social media platform is responsible for the content.
Social media is used more by the technically savvy members of society.
Re: (Score:3)
Social media is used more by the technically savvy members of society.
lol. Are you fucking kidding me?
My grandma uses Facebook.
Social Media is used by children and very old adults enjoying their Hannity and retirement.
The technically savvy members of society are busy working.
Re: (Score:2)
source [twitter.com]
The effort in question is to combat misinformation. Why does "conservatives" feel threaten by effort to combat misinformation? Oh, right - because regularly spewing out misinformation is typical conservative behaviour.
Facebook (Score:2)
"I challenge Facebook to accept this decision and do something very simple — follow the law," he said.
They're Facebook. That's not what they do.
Re: (Score:3)
".... follow the law," he said.
They're Facebook. That's not what they do.
Mostly, if it's cheaper to follow the law than to ignore it, Facebook will do that. I'll bet that the fire alarms in Facebook buildings, even ones that Mark Z never goes to, are at least as good as building codes require. This is a very specific thing, by the time you are getting close to contempt of court and so on the fines actually start to mount up. Facebook is telling us that the ability to manipulate US elections through the use of dark money is so important to them that they are willing to break the
Re: (Score:2)
It's FB, they're huge. The fine needs to be something that really stings and gets etched into corporate memory and culture there.
I think about $10 billion for the initial violation and another $20 billion for lying to the court would be about eight.
Re:Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say a few other states would do well to adopt Washington's transparency law if it is that painful for Facebook to comply. Clearly FB's interests are not well aligned with the interests of democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly FB's interests are not well aligned with the interests of democracy.
I mean, if you think about it...
Warning: Cynical analysis follows.
The status quo of division is far more profitable.
Information warfare is highly profitable to an entity who profits off of the delivery of ads.
It's like campaign financing. People think the politicians are the ones benefiting from that fucked system. Not even close. They fucking hate that they have to worry about their campaign financing. Cui Bono? CNN. Fox. MSNBC. The people who are paid to run the ads, that have become required for ele
Re:Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say a few other states would do well to adopt Washington's transparency law if it is that painful for Facebook to comply. Clearly FB's interests are not well aligned with the interests of democracy.
If you don't think Facebooks interests are well aligned with democracy, then you are clearly stalled into the classic version of democracy where votes are based on the informed decisions of the Electorate rather than the progressive version of democracy where votes are bought and sold by big-tech for which ever RINO or DINO the elite power brokers want elected. The Libertarian in me tends to have an inherent distrust of excessive laws and regulations, but unless there is some nuanced show-stopper in the Washington law, it seems like a pretty good piece of legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FB doesn't have a board like that. Mark has a controlling share of the company. Always has.
But I'm in for seeing him go to jail for any of a number of things. Works for me.
Oh and a high multi billion dollar fine.
Re: (Score:2)
However, controlling interest does not mean the rights of the other shareholders are less than yours.
Therefor, FB absolutely has "a board like that".
Particularly, since if the board shits on the rights of shareholders, Zucky, being the largest shareholder, stands to lose the most value when the company has to compensate them for its malfeasance.
That's just how corporations work. If you don't like it, you do
Re: (Score:1)
In this case, it means there is effectively no board. They have no power. Mark owns 51% of the voting shares. What Mark says goes.
The board is advisory, at best. Their opinion and voted shares carry no weight when stood against his 51% control.
I don't know how to be clearer. Mark owns and runs FB. No one else can over ride him or make any decisions he dislikes. Period.
What legal responsibility would you put on the rest of the board when they can't change any decisions or policy? My dog has as much s
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, it means there is effectively no board. They have no power. Mark owns 51% of the voting shares. What Mark says goes.
Yup- but like I said, it's not that simple.
That's not how boards work.
Zuckerberg doesn't have multiple seats on his board, and he can be outvoted.
His power as a controlling interest is replacing the board if they disagree with him. Of course, at that point, a 1% holder will sue him for whatever their holdings are + expected increase if the company wasn't being run by a controlling interest who was failing in their fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
I don't know how to be clearer. Mark owns and runs FB. No one else can over ride him or make any decisions he dislikes. Period.
I don't know how to be clearer. You don't know what you'
Re: (Score:1)
You're in board meetings doing what? Taking notes for your boss? Serving coffee? I'm retired early so I no longer go to meetings but I'll take the chocolate donut and skip the coffee. Bring me a cold water bottle.
You seriously think that a 2% stake holder has the same voting rights as a 51% stake holder? Lmao... ok. Sure.
You're ridiculous.
Hey I know, what's the most important decision a company can make? Selling the company. Let's see all the 2% holders out vote Mark to sell the company to a holding
Re: (Score:2)
You're in board meetings doing what? Taking notes for your boss? Serving coffee? I'm retired early so I no longer go to meetings but I'll take the chocolate donut and skip the coffee. Bring me a cold water bottle.
Na, you're not. ;)
Not unless I'm paying for it, and you call SSI retirement
Why am I in board meetings? Because I'm my organization's senior engineering lead.
This means I spend a lot of time reporting to the board.
You seriously think that a 2% stake holder has the same voting rights as a 51% stake holder? Lmao... ok. Sure.
This isn't about voting rights.
You seem to be mixing up a board of directors with shareholders. This is weird, because boards often have people who aren't even owners on them.
Board of directors voting has nothing to do with share ownership.
Hey I know, what's the most important decision a company can make? Selling the company. Let's see all the 2% holders out vote Mark to sell the company to a holding company they created, for a dollar. They can do that, right? They out voted Mark and stole his company for a dollar because uhm, more votes! Lol, silly.
You don't know a fucking thing, dude.
So, yes.
In a p
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah earlier in my career I did something like you. Techie nobody reporting to Board to make themselves feel they were doing their due diligence. Then I became a real exec. And then I made more money than you'll ever see in an IPO and retired. SSI shifts my retirement income curve by a pixel or two. I've already paid more in taxes than you'll likely earn over the course of your life.
You're clearly not someone who understands anything about corporate structure. And unwilling to learn.
Here, dummy, read
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah earlier in my career I did something like you. Techie nobody reporting to Board to make themselves feel they were doing their due diligence. Then I became a real exec. And then I made more money than you'll ever see in an IPO and retired. SSI shifts my retirement income curve by a pixel or two. I've already paid more in taxes than you'll likely earn over the course of your life.
Na, you didn't.
You're clearly not someone who understands anything about corporate structure. And unwilling to learn.
Wrong answer, fuckstick.
Here, dummy, read this. I had many choices of links but fool dot com seemed the most appropriate for you.
Picking a link that supports your view... how interesting. You could have picked from legal firms... anything. But you chose an opinion piece by some idiot who thinks like you. It's telling.
They make the same mistake as you. Shareholder voting power is not board voting power.
Idiot. And some other moron, probably you with a sock puppet modded me down for being 100% right. Typical Slashdot, no wonder this place is dead. If the editors cared they'd strip the mod points from people who do that.
I have no sockpuppets. How silly.
The power of a shareholder in a public corporation is limited to selection of the board of directors.
Except at general meetings where that is done, Zuckerberg ho
Re: (Score:1)
Usually I read long comments but I stopped when you dismissed my link from a very well known finance site as cherry picking. As I noted I could have given you any of several that said the same thing but chose "fool" because it fit you.
I'll keep it short since you aren't interested in facts: Mark runs FB. The board is powerless. Advisory, at best. People smarter than you (some random techie who served coffee at a board meeting once) who do nothing but finance agree with me.
You're just wrong. Have a nice
Re: (Score:2)
Usually I read long comments but I stopped when you dismissed my link from a very well known finance site as cherry picking. As I noted I could have given you any of several that said the same thing but chose "fool" because it fit you.
That was an opinion piece. The site is irrelevant.
You cherry picked an opinion that fit yours. An incorrect opinion.
I'll keep it short since you aren't interested in facts: Mark runs FB. The board is powerless. Advisory, at best. People smarter than you (some random techie who served coffee at a board meeting once) who do nothing but finance agree with me.
Those are not facts. They are falsehoods.
Zuck owns FB.
Zuck presides over the board.
Zuck is the chief executive for FB.
The board is not powerless.
They could fire Zuck today.
Of course, he'd just call a shareholder meeting and replace them all with people who would re-hire him, but that is the actual process that would have to take place.
A shareholder has no direct power over a publicly
Why would it be hard to comply? (Score:5, Insightful)
That was their excuse. All you need to know is "requires ad sellers such as Meta to disclose the names and addresses of political ad buyers, the targets of such ads and the total number of views of each ad"
Is that not all information they would have?
Sounds more like we know we're allowing ads to spew BS but they're our friends and we don't want to get them in trouble.
Re:Why would it be hard to comply? (Score:5, Interesting)
They get paid "not to know" those details. And that's all that matters to them.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY:
Sounds more like we know we're allowing ads to spew BS but they're our ADVERTISERS and we don't want to STOP TAKING THEIR MONEY.
You're welcome ...
They seem to want to take it to supreme court (Score:3)
They probably think they can win and seemed to already think so before Ginsburg was replaced, since their checking was lacking even in 2019.
Criminal corporation crimes, film at eleven. (Score:2)
repeatedly and intentionally violated the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are the decision makers not being charged criminally? As in jail time for violating the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Should at least be "conspiracy to...".
Re: repeatedly and intentionally violated the law (Score:2)
For the same reason you won't be sent to a Supernax for repeated speeding violations.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you trying to tear down our legal system and implement punishment by "whatever seems prudent to schwit1"?
You can repeatedly violate many laws with no criminal repercussions as long as you continue to pay the fine.
As to whether or not it should be that way, that's another discussion. Ultimately, the laws are as passed.
Common Sense Law Hypocrisy (Score:1)
Attorney General Bob Ferguson --"On behalf of the people of Washington, I challenge Facebook to accept this decision and do something very simple — follow the law," he said."
When a normal person reads the actual law it is so confusing it makes no logical sense.
Hey Bob, just be honest and fair to residents
Constitutional (Score:2)
Facebook's lawyers: This law is unconstitutional.
Judge: The law is very constitutional.
I wonder why? (Score:2)
So they ignored the courts and remained biased. Why would they do that?
There's profit in keeping the hard right happy
They, unlike many people in all forms of IT, are conservatives>
They wanted to prove something...
..when they were caught trending anti-trump smears (Score:3, Informative)
..on behalf of Clinton Campaign who...
1. picked up expired domains.
2. try to move domain to anonymizing service
3. set up CMS and pump full of rss fed junk
4. put fake trump smear articles
5. pay facebook to 'editorial' trend the articles
6. get caught out with evidence posted on their facebook sites
7. suspended their facebook accounts
8. facebook forced by the intercept (after receiving evidence) to admit manipulation of trending by 'editorial trending'.
Facebook are dodgy A.F.
yeah,
Yet, they continue to promote Marxist garbage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you write lies like that?
If you are not lying, debunking my claim should be trivial by providing a single concrete example proving that you are right (which you of course are not able to).
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a PARTIAL list of my blocked pages. Not all are openly Marxist but many of them are. It is not one example, but more like 60+.
Mary Trump
The Fried Rice God
In Defense of Communism
The Village Idiots Of The GOP
Socialist Art
The Politburo of Teabilly Mockery
Communist Party Of India - Memeist
The Rings of Power Daily
Parents & Educators against the Daniels & Bennett Educational Reform
RadFem Collective
Labour Heartlands
You Ready Grandma
The International Magazine
Amy MacMahon - Greens MP for South Bris
Re: (Score:2)
That is ridiculous. This is just a list of things you do not like. You claimed "I mean they openly call for the murder of the wealthy". That is guarantied to be lie to claim for the vast majority of your list, and extremely likely for all of them. Are you able to back up that claim with concrete, individual quotes? Or are you still just going to hide behind some vague "many people are saying"?