Slashdot Mirror
Washington Sues Facebook, Google For Failure To Disclose Political Ad Spending (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook and Google were paid millions for political advertising purposes in Washington but failed for years to publish related information -- such as the advertiser's address -- as required by state law, alleges a lawsuit by the state's attorney general. Washington law requires that "political campaign and lobbying contributions and expenditures be fully disclosed to the public and that secrecy is to be avoided." Specifically, "documents and books of account" must be made available for public inspection during the campaign and for three years following; these must detail the candidate, name of advertiser, address, cost and method of payment, and description services rendered. Bob Ferguson, Washington's attorney general, filed a lawsuit yesterday alleging that both Facebook and Google "failed to obtain and maintain" this information.
Maybe both Facebook and Google are used to simply taking money from advertisers, rather than keeping track of all the details involved. That might require real people to do work and verify information veracity. I wonder what excuses they'll come up with to explain why they ignore laws that apply to everyone else.
Remember, anonymitiy is crucial to free speech, and requires those advertising to have their name and address published is a deliberate attempt to allow the masses to punish unpopular political speech.
What bearing has this on the veracity of the allegations made in the lawsuit? None whatsoever? Thanks for playing!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Washington state, or the Washington that matters?
Exactly who paid for the ad should be visible within the ad, without having to click a link or run your mouse over it. Same as TV ads that say "paid for by".
I hate fat people.
https://i.redd.it/5pg7pckqt621...
The spy-o-crats sure were happy when it was 99% sure and no need to look into anything.
Never mind H ran a terrible campaign, and most presidential elections are 48/48 with 4% of the voters picking the winner at the electoral college.
Trump is trying to reduce foreign influence to our elections which was one of his campaign promises.
Trump supporters swallow.
You could complain that the law shouldn't exist or that it's a bogus prosecution. The gibberish you just posted is completely worthless.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Oh man my russian brother would be fast and furious 'bout this!
I'm sorry, can you try that again in English? Thanks!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
BREAKING NEWS: Facebook has given at least four Chinese companies access gto user data. One has been flagged by U.S. intelligence as a security threat. http://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-device-partnerships-china.html
Enough of this shit. Facebook are a treasonous company which presents a clear and present danger to national security. If Trump sends in SEAL TEAM 6 to Facebook HQ to take these fuckers out I'd forgive him for everything else.
Lawful + welfare = ...lawfare??
You're Russian, aren't you?
and you're surprised by this? facebook gives everyone all the data. always has.
nothing to see here - move along
When is an ad political, and when is it just an ad?
If I take out an ad to smear some politician, is that a political ad?
What if I do the same ad about some random person?
The good news for him is that being a weasel is now apparently the new way to become president. Good luck for the future, Americans!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This post brought to you by Putin and/or the Koch brothers.
your corporations in the state I'd start to move everything out to a friendlier place.
;)
Just my 2 cents
Do ads from outside the U.S. have to be disclosed also?
Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?
Being racist against Russians is evidently a-okay in your book.
New? How new? Do you mean the guy who was going to increase protections for whistle-blowers, stop warrant-less surveillance and close Guantanamo Bay?
Or are you thinking of the fellow who was "a uniter and not a divider" that was going to keep America out of quagmires that don't have a clear exit strategy?
Are you reaching back to the gregarious fellow who's appearance, including his hair color changed almost as much as his contradictory campaign promises based on the audience he was going to appear before?
Or are you reaching back even further for the start of this "new" trend? Because this isn't getting any more difficult. Admittedly the latest specimen doesn't exhibit the refined, cultured quality of deceit that his predecessors had developed. But I'd be hard pressed to call it any more weaselly.
Heck, he's so bad at lying he's arguably more transparent than what we are used to seeing in Washington. I guess it's a matter of whether you want to see the lie coming or if you'd rather a lie you can believe in.
I'd just love to see the lawyers fight it out.
Translation. "Washington State Sues Business Rivals of Microsoft"
Now it makes sense.
Why is Snark Required?
Well, at least you used to have weasels with some integrity. Now you don't even have that.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Like FB, USPS is paid to deliver political advertising. Does USPS maintain this data and make it public? I don't think so.
Is the law really applying to the 'deliverer' of the advertising or the 'originator'/'submitter' of the material?
THey should also show how much money they spend supressing the news as well!
> Like FB, USPS is paid to deliver political advertising. Does
> USPS maintain this data and make it public? I don't think so.
The post office and the phone company are "common carriers" which gives them different rights and responsibilities. E.g. if a TV or radio station program falsely called you a pedophile, you could sue them. If A sends a letter to B saying Anonymous Coward is a pedophile, the post office cannot be sued for transmitting the letter. Ditto for the phone company not subject to lawsuits if someone phones your neighbour falsely telling them you're a pedophile.
A common carrier, by definition, *MUST* provide it's service to everybody, unless they have a good reason not to do so. E.g. an airline can refuse to carry fireworks in the cargo hold on a passenger flight.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?
Article I Section 8. The Commerce Clause. Provides congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The legal cases showing how this addresses transactions over the mail, the internet, and other common carriers such as by telephone --- include ones such as Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue
I must have a narrower definition of integrity than you.
There's something new to learn every day, I guess.
Still pretty damn obscure, if you ask me.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
No, law + warfare. See the Wikipedia entry.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.