Facebook Should Stop Censoring Marijuana Legalization Campaign Ads
Facebook is facing down another embarrassing episode of censorship this week after refusing to show ads
submitted by the Just Say Now marijuana legalization campaign. The gag
is an important reminder that social networks like Facebook - while
useful, interesting, and pretty - are "walled gardens" with overseers
whose interests can overwrite free speech, open communication, and in
this case, essential political debate. (In this they have something in common with Apple.)
Most recently, Facebook was caught censoring mentions of Power.com,
an online tool designed to help users collect their information from
Facebook to facilitate migration to other social networks. To this day,
users are still blocked from sending messages or posting status updates
containing the word "Power.com," preventing users from spreading the
word about a convenient way to "make the move" to Orkut, or LinkedIn, or
any other social networking service that may crop up to compete. The
block even stopped law professor Eric Goldman from commenting on Facebook's lawsuit against Power.com (Disclosure: EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Power in that case).
Facebook's censorship for anticompetitive reasons is petty and lame
to be sure, but silencing Just Say Now's marijuana legalization ad
campaign is even worse. Voters in various districts nationwide will have
to make important political decisions about marijuana this year (California's Proposition 19
is one example). Facebook's decision, reportedly an attempt to be
consistent with its ad policies restricting smoking and/or
marijuana-related content, is instead primarily silencing an important,
motivated voice in a politically significant debate.
Facebook should lift the ban and show Just Say Now's political ads.
For better or worse, Facebook has become a important means of
communication and organization for candidates and political campaigns.
In this role, Facebook functions best as a neutral platform, hosting the
debate without entering it. Whether or not Facebook wants to restrict
depictions of smoking in commercial ads, it should not prohibit the open
and robust political debate central to the value and promise of the
Internet.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Facebook is facing down another embarrassing episode of censorship this week after refusing to show ads
submitted by the Just Say Now marijuana legalization campaign. The gag
is an important reminder that social networks like Facebook - while
useful, interesting, and pretty - are "walled gardens" with overseers
whose interests can overwrite free speech, open communication, and in
this case, essential political debate. (In this they have something in common with Apple.)
Most recently, Facebook was caught censoring mentions of Power.com,
an online tool designed to help users collect their information from
Facebook to facilitate migration to other social networks. To this day,
users are still blocked from sending messages or posting status updates
containing the word "Power.com," preventing users from spreading the
word about a convenient way to "make the move" to Orkut, or LinkedIn, or
any other social networking service that may crop up to compete. The
block even stopped law professor Eric Goldman from commenting on Facebook's lawsuit against Power.com (Disclosure: EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Power in that case).
Facebook's censorship for anticompetitive reasons is petty and lame
to be sure, but silencing Just Say Now's marijuana legalization ad
campaign is even worse. Voters in various districts nationwide will have
to make important political decisions about marijuana this year (California's Proposition 19
is one example). Facebook's decision, reportedly an attempt to be
consistent with its ad policies restricting smoking and/or
marijuana-related content, is instead primarily silencing an important,
motivated voice in a politically significant debate.
Facebook should lift the ban and show Just Say Now's political ads.
For better or worse, Facebook has become a important means of
communication and organization for candidates and political campaigns.
In this role, Facebook functions best as a neutral platform, hosting the
debate without entering it. Whether or not Facebook wants to restrict
depictions of smoking in commercial ads, it should not prohibit the open
and robust political debate central to the value and promise of the
Internet.
Facebook is facing down another embarrassing episode of censorship this week after refusing to show ads
submitted by the Just Say Now marijuana legalization campaign. The gag
is an important reminder that social networks like Facebook - while
useful, interesting, and pretty - are "walled gardens" with overseers
whose interests can overwrite free speech, open communication, and in
this case, essential political debate. (In this they have something in common with Apple.)
Most recently, Facebook was caught censoring mentions of Power.com,
an online tool designed to help users collect their information from
Facebook to facilitate migration to other social networks. To this day,
users are still blocked from sending messages or posting status updates
containing the word "Power.com," preventing users from spreading the
word about a convenient way to "make the move" to Orkut, or LinkedIn, or
any other social networking service that may crop up to compete. The
block even stopped law professor Eric Goldman from commenting on Facebook's lawsuit against Power.com (Disclosure: EFF filed an amicus brief in support of Power in that case).
Facebook's censorship for anticompetitive reasons is petty and lame
to be sure, but silencing Just Say Now's marijuana legalization ad
campaign is even worse. Voters in various districts nationwide will have
to make important political decisions about marijuana this year (California's Proposition 19
is one example). Facebook's decision, reportedly an attempt to be
consistent with its ad policies restricting smoking and/or
marijuana-related content, is instead primarily silencing an important,
motivated voice in a politically significant debate.
Facebook should lift the ban and show Just Say Now's political ads.
For better or worse, Facebook has become a important means of
communication and organization for candidates and political campaigns.
In this role, Facebook functions best as a neutral platform, hosting the
debate without entering it. Whether or not Facebook wants to restrict
depictions of smoking in commercial ads, it should not prohibit the open
and robust political debate central to the value and promise of the
Internet.