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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, can you try that again in English? Thanks!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You're talking about Marc Elias. He was the general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. That's a weak argument to say she wasn't responsible.
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
True but an attorney from Seattle named Marc Elias from Perkins Coie LLP was the general counsel for both Kerry's and Hillary's campaigns.
Are you really saying that you're not responsible for everything your attorney does? And how about your manicurist?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Wrong. Try again some time.
At that level? Please. It's a plum job for a law firm to list on its resume.
They won't just do risky stuff for their client's benefit without their knowledge. At best, they will fake no knowledge for plausible deniability purposes.
Wait, are we talking about Hillary's lawyer or Trump's children and lawyer?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Of course, your example fails when everyone is heads down in their smart phones. No, you really want to censor dissenting views.
We don't assume they're honest. We do assume, however, that the political violance against the CA proposition 8 supporters will be repeated by other SJWs, and consequently see the need for anonymous speech to protect the freedom of speech. It's not free speech if you'll be targeted with violence for speaking.
your corporations in the state I'd start to move everything out to a friendlier place.
;)
Just my 2 cents
Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?
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.
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.
I don't believe "anonymity" is included in the 1st Amendment.
It was essential to forming both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
And why do people automatically believe "anonymous" sources to be honest?
Anonymous sources are just a good way of making shit up and not having to prove the veracity of your statements. It also provides reports and all media in general from libel charges.
The value of an anonymous source is that words can exist under their own weight. There is no appeal to authority for a claim made anonymously, and only fragile ad hominem attacks like the one you made. The words are worth what they are worth, no more, and only a fool insists less.
> 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
Hillary didnâ(TM)t hire him. Her law firm Perkins Coie here in Seattle hired him. She isnâ(TM)t responsible.
Trump didn't pay Stormy Daniels. Trump's law firm paid her.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I must have a narrower definition of integrity than you.
Same reason they believe most of what they read; especially if it has quotes around it.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
You should hit the road with this.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
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.