So what about lying in advertising? Leave the public to sort things out—what is true, what’s not?

Excuse me! Please allow me to question, Mr. Zuckerberg.

As I speak, my blood starts to boil.

“So, Mr. Suckerberg… Oh, I mean Zuckerberg, let’s consider the opioid crisis. Surely, you’re familiar with Purdue Pharma and OxyContin where the CEOs knew full well the drug was addictive.

Are you familiar with the ad of a mother feeding her baby a bottle of milk and claiming that ‘DDT is good for me?’ Probably before your time. Anyhow, the EPA banned by the pesticide.

Or what about the Marlboro man depicted on TV as symbol of masculinity. Five of the actors who portrayed him died of lung disease. Again, possibly before your time. The point is, company officials knew the hazards. So that’s all okay, Mr. Zuckerberg?

Yeah, right. Call it for what it was -- healt0 related dangerous propaganda under the guise of “advertising”, with CEOs perpetuating lies for profits.

Ok, I know what you’re thinking. That has nothing to do with political ads.

Oh, but doesn’t it? So…what about the health of our political system?

Take Goebbel’s quote (Hitler’s propaganda minister): ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.’ This is at the heart of advertising and even worse, propaganda. Consider the lying ramifications the repetitive rhetoric of Hitler’s propaganda machine had on history.

Why is it that other companies face repercussions if they lie (their ads are pulled or a fine is administered), but false political advertising lives on at Facebook? Tainted money. That’s what I’d call it. How does that sit with you, Mr. Zuckerberg?

What will be the ramifications of your choice or any other CEOs that follow suit? All of you will go down in history as those who didn’t care about the health of the political system. You’ll be like the tailors in the Emperor’s New Clothes, who just took the money and never exposed the truth that the emperor was indeed naked after all.



Load comments