Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, did you mean Mozilla is right to point out?
no, facebook.
[deleted]
Mozilla Raises Concerns Over Facebook’s Lack of Transparency
51–53 of 53 posts
Re: Mozilla Raises Concerns Over Facebook’s Lack of Transparency
#52Re: Mozilla Raises Concerns Over Facebook’s Lack of Transparency
#53Political advertising is something that FB should have tackled closer to the stem. First, they should have considered banning it entirely. I'm sure they had such conversations around (eg) tobacco, arms, alcohol, medicines and such. FB are far from immune to the fiduciary imperative, but they are very profitable. They were in a position to turn away potentially problem-making revenue. In hindsight, IMO, that would hav…
Political ads are not inherently bad though. Ads in general are not actually. Ads help political candidates to get the word out...i think that’s useful and I think it’s awesome that Facebook didn’t go the route of less resistance (banning political ads) here and rather is trying to get this right! Political ads a a tiny slice of FBs revenue...so I don’t believe they are profit motivated here. $1B was spend on digital…
>>Political ads are not inherently bad
Are they inherently good?
In any case, I didn't say they had to ban them, though I think in hindsight they should have considering (as you say) that they could afford to.
Since they decided not to, then they should have treated political ads more responsibly. For example, only a candidate can run a political campaign. No anonymous advertisers.