Thread by @JuddLegum

1. In September, Facebook VP Nick Clegg laid the groundwork for Facebook's policy to allow lies in political ads.

"[I]n mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is," Clegg said.

Let's explore that a bit.

2. Clegg and Facebook argue that the company doesn't need to fact-check political ads because those ads are ALREADY SCRUTINIZED

It's true that, for example, political ads on TV are scrutinized.

But does that apply to Facebook ads?

No. And let me explain why.

3. Facebook says it has a system that lets third parties scrutinize ads from candidates on Facebook: it's political ad library!

Yes, but yesterday, the Trump campaign had OVER 4700 active ads on Facebook yesterday

Here's what that looks like:

4. It is impossible for any of these ads to be subject to scrutiny. There are just too many and Facebook isn't devoting any resources to the problem. It expects journalists to do so. (Even as is sucks advertising revenue from the industry.)

5. But suppose you actually were able to scrutinize 4700 ads in a day. It still wouldn't matter. Because Facebook keeps the targeting of ads secret.

If I see a political ad during a football game, I can air a rebuttal during the next game. There is no corollary here.

6. Even if Facebook allowed you to retarget the audiences, you'd still need OVER 800K per week just to reach the same people the Trump campaign is reaching.

In sum: There is little to no scrutiny of these ads. And that's the way that Facebook has built the system