Forbes, Owned by a Former Presidential Candidate, Complains Facebook Doesn't Ban Sites Funded by Political Actors

Rob Pegoraro launched into an extensive rant at Forbes, complaining that Facebook isn't banning The Federalist and Breitbart under its new policy of labeling local news that's actually coming from PACs and other political organizations. His argument is as stupid as it lacks even the most basic self-awareness.

A new policy Facebook FB 0.0% announced Tuesday suggests the social network will finally punish political propaganda disguised as news. But you should expect much less, thanks to a loophole big enough to shove a printing press through: This rule won’t touch sites funded by political actors, only those they own or lead. 

A ton of sites are funded by political actors. For that matter, Forbes is owned by a former GOP presidential candidate, who, unlike Pegoraro, is supportive of Trump.

A more useful metric then might be journalistic independence, but that would exclude the New York Times. And much of the media. How long would anyone last at most major media outlets if they were openly supportive of President Trump?

That takes us back to square one. Trying to wipe out sites funded by political actors as in wealthy people with strong political views, would cut a wide swath.

But Rob isn't interested in The Intercept, even though it blatantly functions as opposition research for socialist candidates, and is owned by the richest man in Hawaii, or Jeff Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post, but strictly in conservative sites.

And then he quotes Snopes because this is literally an attempt to show that journalism is a joke.

But Facebook has decided that funding doesn’t count. That will leave numerous right-wing voices unscathed—see, for instance, the usually-wrong Federalist. which doesn’t even disclose its backers. 

Rob can't seem to focus or stick to the subject. And halfway through this has become a rant about conservative sites he hates, with no regard to the core issues, which is political organizations setting up sites that look like local news sites, but aren't.

There is an argument to be made here that Courier's fake news sites aren't all that different in some ways from the rest of the media stew. Just more cynical. But Rob isn't even attempting to disguise the fact that his objection is to Facebook's failure to ban conservative sites outright, than to any general rule or principle.

So if you need another reason to feel cranky about Facebook, consider this: This new rule will probably do nothing about the already-debunked stories your friends keep sharing there.

And so this whole thing concludes with, "I want to ban the stuff that other people share because I disagree with it."

Because journalism.