Facebook Cares More About Money Than About Truth, Mark Hamill Says — Does He Have a Point?

Star Wars actor Mark Hamill announced in a tweet on Sunday that he would no longer use Facebook in an attempt to protest against Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to allow political ads that also include fake news and misinformation.

Using the hashtag #PatriorismOverProfits, Hamill confirmed he would delete his Facebook account. The actor also noted that Facebook had given itself over to the dark side by putting money before “truthfulness.”

Hamill, who portrayed Luke Skywalker, emphasized that probably his move would not matter to the world, but at least he would be able to sleep better at night.

That is not the first time when Hamill expressed his political views on Twitter. He previously said he would vote for a Democratic president regardless of who the candidate is.

Facebook recently announced several changes in its policy aimed to ”increase the level of transparency” around the controversial political ads that faced scrutiny from the public and Congress.

The social media giant confirmed it has no plans to ban or block them. Facebook’s director of product management for ads, Rob Leathern, said that the social media would allow users to see ”fewer ads” in 2020.

Leathern also added that the firm is not deaf to the overwhelming criticism. Still, in the absence of regulations, companies are left to define their policies about running or not political ads.

Mark Zuckerberg previously commented that the voters should be able to hear from the people who wish to lead them. The people can decide for themselves whether to believe the politicians or not, he added. Zuckerberg highlighted that the limitation of political ads would mean the restriction of free speech.

Mark Hamill’s criticism came soon after Facebook’s former security chief Alex Stamos stated he was disappointed that the social media giant did not basic fact check to determine whether politicians are spreading fake news and disinformation.

By contrast, Twitter and Google opted for a different approach to political ads. Twitter preferred to ban all political advertisements from its platform, arguing that political messages should be earned, not bought.

What Google did was to limit the extension to which political ads could reach the audience via its tools. Under the new policy, ads can be directed to users of a certain age, gender, and location.

However, Google would not allow campaigners to match their databases of potential voters with those owned by the search giant.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with Hamill’s statement that money comes first for Facebook?