Thank you. Really good to dig into this. At this suggestion (“Ban small payouts for political content”) however, what would define political content? There’s a lot of “nostalgia” content on Facebook that’s small “p” political in terms of engagement but hard to label as overtly so.
Broadly is the answer. So yes, including material like this. But it's only that you can't get paid for this content. There's absolutely no intention here to ban it. There are some valid history/educational reasons for posting nostalgia, but the likely motivation for most of them is the payment, and they're clearly mining politics to get engagement.
This is super interesting and an important conversation. I like the idea of the transparency report. Two questions. How would you define if someone is a political creator or not? Would news accounts or independent journalists also be covered?
The way we've always thought best was to take a fairly broad definition (a la "political and issue ads") and regulate it as a system + associated tolerances, rather than trying to find bright lines (which really don't exist). It's an old post, and probably needs an update, but something like this: https://whotargets.me/en/regulating-political-ad-systems-not-just-political-ads/
Obviously not everyone posts about the same topics all the time, so the idea here is that, by classifying against accounts' posting behaviour over time, rather than on individual pieces of content, you have some flexibility.
As for news accounts and independent journalists - yes. It's not the fault of legitimate, ethical journalists, but clearly many unethical-but-monetised political agitators operate under that banner.
Lots to debate here though - there are many trade-offs.
Thank you. Really good to dig into this. At this suggestion (“Ban small payouts for political content”) however, what would define political content? There’s a lot of “nostalgia” content on Facebook that’s small “p” political in terms of engagement but hard to label as overtly so.
Broadly is the answer. So yes, including material like this. But it's only that you can't get paid for this content. There's absolutely no intention here to ban it. There are some valid history/educational reasons for posting nostalgia, but the likely motivation for most of them is the payment, and they're clearly mining politics to get engagement.
This is super interesting and an important conversation. I like the idea of the transparency report. Two questions. How would you define if someone is a political creator or not? Would news accounts or independent journalists also be covered?
The way we've always thought best was to take a fairly broad definition (a la "political and issue ads") and regulate it as a system + associated tolerances, rather than trying to find bright lines (which really don't exist). It's an old post, and probably needs an update, but something like this: https://whotargets.me/en/regulating-political-ad-systems-not-just-political-ads/
Obviously not everyone posts about the same topics all the time, so the idea here is that, by classifying against accounts' posting behaviour over time, rather than on individual pieces of content, you have some flexibility.
As for news accounts and independent journalists - yes. It's not the fault of legitimate, ethical journalists, but clearly many unethical-but-monetised political agitators operate under that banner.
Lots to debate here though - there are many trade-offs.