Opposing view: We shouldn’t be the gatekeeper of truth

Anyone who thinks Facebook should decide which claims by politicians are acceptable might ask themselves this question: Why do you want us to have so much power?

In our view, the only thing worse than Facebook making these calls is for Facebook to these calls.

Our approach is consistent with companies like YouTube and Twitter. And broadcasters are required by federal law not to censor candidate ads. In fact, the ad that touched off this debate ran nearly 1,000 times on local TV stations in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

So if people have a problem with Facebook’s policy, they have a problem with the way political speech is protected in this country.

Speech from candidates and elected officials is already highly scrutinized; it’s a good thing. But for that to happen, the public and the news media have to see it. In fact, if Facebook became the gatekeeper of truth, the first people to complain would be those who are complaining now — for good reason.

Our policies don’t mean that politicians can say whatever they want. They can’t spread misinformation about where, when or how to vote, for example, or content that risks imminent harm or incites violence.

In other words, contrary to much of the criticism, it’s not anything goes.

Perhaps most critically, some say Facebook is again allowing its platform to be overtaken by the kind of misinformation efforts we remember from 2016. We disagree. Foreign interference and fake accounts are an intrusion into the electoral process that we’ve been aggressively battling for three years. The other is content produced by political candidates, who have to put their name on everything they say.

We realize not everyone agrees with our decision, and we welcome that debate. But fundamentally we believe that, in a democracy, it’s better to let voters make their own decisions, not companies like Facebook.