Elizabeth Warren Campaign Spoofs Facebook And Trump Campaign To Make A Point

Hillary: “I Saw Donald Trump Secretly Have Sex With Giant Chinese Pigs in Beijing !”

Of course it’s false.

Of course it’s a lie.

Of course it’s outlandish.

Of course it’s absurd.

Of course it’s preposterous.

Of course it’s – to borrow Trump’s words – “bullshit.”

But you know what?

It’s 100% legal to publish such tripe.

As long as it’s called “political” advertising.

Seriously.

100% legal.

And the Chinese are developing a breed of GIANT pig that, on average, is well over 1100 pounds – bigger than a polar bear.

Seriously.

Read the story on the Daily Mail website linked above, or on Bloomberg Business News website here.

A visitor rides on a 750-kilogram (1653 lbs) pig at a farm in Zhengzhou city, Henan province, China. Source: ImagineChina via AP Images

But, more to the point.

The campaign of Democratic candidate for Party Presidential Nominee Elizabeth Warren has recently purposely posted a false political advertisement on Facebook.

Why did her campaign do that?

To prove at least one point.

What’s the point?

1.) To prove that publishing purposely false and deceptive claims about politics is 100% legal, and;
2.) To prove that because the publishing of known lies is 100% legal, it can (and did, in the 2016 General Election) lead to Election Interference, and thus, undermine the Constitutional democratic process in our United States (as happened in the 2016 General Election, as proven by numerous independent investigations).

Here’s a screenshot of the purposely false ad which the Warren campaign purchased, and which Facebook published. Most news media outlets have not yet published images of the ad.

Breaking news:
Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook just endorsed Donald Trump for re-eelction.

The purchase of the purposely false Facebook political ad was publicized on Twitter by the Warren campaign, to which was noted the following in successive Tweets:

“Facebook changed their ads policy to allow politicians to run ads with known lies—explicitly turning the platform into a disinformation-for-profit machine. This week, we decided to see just how far it goes.”

“We intentionally made a Facebook ad with false claims and submitted it to Facebook’s ad platform to see if it’d be approved. It got approved quickly and the ad is now running on Facebook. Take a look:”

“Facebook holds incredible power to affect elections and our national debate. They’ve decided to let political figures lie to you—even about Facebook itself—while their executives and their investors get even richer off the ads containing these lies.”

“Once again, we’re seeing Facebook throw its hands up to battling misinformation in the political discourse, because when profit comes up against protecting democracy, Facebook chooses profit.”

“The Trump campaign is currently spending $1 million a *week* on ads including ones containing known lies—ads that TV stations refuse to air because they’re false. Facebook just takes the cash, no questions asked.”
LINK: A Facebook policy lets politicians lie in ads, leaving Democrats fearing what Trump will do https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/10/facebook-policy-political-speech-lets-politicians-lie-ads/#comments-wrapper

“Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once through negligence. Now, they’ve changed their policy so they can profit from lies to the American people. It’s time to hold Mark Zuckerberg accountable—add your name if you agree:”
LINK: https://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/ew-soc-big-tech?source=soc-PET-ew-tw-facebook-20191012

Of course, Facebook didn’t like her Tweets, so from the Official Facebook Newsroom Twitter account (@FBNewsroom), they Tweeted the following directly to the Warren campaign:
“@ewarren looks like broadcast stations across the country have aired this ad nearly 1,000 times, as required by law. FCC doesn’t want broadcast companies censoring candidates’ speech. We agree it’s better to let voters—not companies—decide.”#FCC #candidateuse

Her reply was priceless:
“You’re making my point here. It’s up to you whether you take money to promote lies. You can be in the disinformation-for-profit business, or you can hold yourself to some standards. In fact, those standards were in your policy. Why the change?”

However, there’s also some underlying motivation to the official FB stance, which is this:
Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for Federal regulators to break up Facebook.
Mark Zuckerberg is not happy about that.

See: Zuckerberg Hates Warren’s Plan to Break Up Facebook. She Doesn’t Care.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html

See also: Zuckerberg blasts Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up Facebook and says it’s an ‘existential’ threat
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/audio-from-zuckerberg-meeting-with-facebook-employees-leaked.html

What precipitated all the fracas as a investigative news feature story published online October 1, 2019 by The Verge which was based upon a 2-hour recording in July 2019 in which Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had said in part of Senator Warren that, “If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. Does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. That’s not like the position you want to be in. We care about our country and want to work with our government to do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”

In response, Senator Warren said mockingly, “What would really ‘suck,’ is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy.”

You know, she has a point.

Senator Warren – 1
Mark Zuckerberg & Facebook – 0