Thread by @elijsanders

Both @karaswisher and @jack are calling attention to how Mark Zuckerberg conflates "free speech" with paid speech as he defends Facebook's hands-off approach to lies in political ads.

We have seen this conflation before in Washington state.

It happened just over a year ago, as Facebook and Google lobbyists were trying to weaken Washington state's strong disclosure laws regarding online political ads that target local elections. (Mayor, city council, school board, etc.)

thestranger.com/slog/2018/09/2…

In September of 2018, Facebook and Google lobbyists told local regulators that Washington's tough disclosure requirements for online political ads could have "a stifling effect on free speech."

At the time, I noted:

In Washington state, the conflation didn't work. (Nor did the lobbying.)

Instead, regulators went against the wishes of the Facebook and Google lobbyists, voting unanimously to make this state's online ad disclosure laws even stronger.

thestranger.com/slog/2018/11/2…

In his news-making thread yesterday, @jack encouraged boldness by regulators in taking on the issue of online political ads.

He also argued that transparency requirements are "progress," but "not enough."

And yet the experience of Washington state shows how difficult it can be just to get tech giants on board with government-mandated transparency requirements.

Washington state now appears to have the strongest transparency rules for local online political ads in the nation.

apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.as…

It requires more transparency from "commercial advertisers" (the sellers of local political ads) than Facebook provides in its online ad archive.

And it mandates way more transparency than Google's political ad archive provides.

(Google's archive offers zero transparency for local political ads, disclosing information only about ads that target federal elections.)

So have the tech giants been rushing to embrace Washington state's bold transparency regime?

In a word: No.

Instead, Facebook and Google announced last year that they would stop selling local political advertising in Washington state altogether.

You could think of it as a local version of the global stop @jack announced for Twitter yesterday, except...

...it was done under very different circumstances, and its aim appeared to be the avoidance of disclosure requirements.

What happened next?

Facebook and Google kept on selling local political ads in Washington state anyway, while simultaneously refusing to comply with the state’s disclosure laws.

thestranger.com/slog/2019/07/2…

As The Seattle Times editorial page put it yesterday: "Two of the largest information companies on Earth are making a mockery of Washington state campaign law."

seattletimes.com/opinion/editor…

As a result of Facebook's refusal to follow Washington's disclosure law, it has been hit with charges from election regulators that could lead to a trial-like enforcement action (and potential fines).

Google is under investigation by election regulators for a similar refusal.

There are undoubtedly many lessons to be found in the Washington state experience, which is still unfolding.

But one lesson thus far appears to be this:

Three years after Russians used Facebook advertising as part of their operation to interfere in a US presidential election, just getting to mandatory transparency for *local* online political ads in one state remains incredibly difficult.

That is in part because officials in DC have done virtually nothing to regulate online political ads since the 2016 election interference operation.

But it is also because Facebook and Google have demonstrated they're prepared to resist when a state like Washington attempts to become a laboratory for stronger, more transparent democracy.