"But frankly, I think that information is an important factor in how some people will choose to vote in the fall. And so we want to make sure that information is out there and people can see it, warts and all."
And:
"What would Facebook do if Trump falsely said on the platform that he was the winner of the presidential election?
Gleicher dodged the question, refusing to directly say whether Facebook would take action against such a post."
That's why they'll fail. You can't fight lies if you don't believe that lying exists.
And I think Facebook, for whatever reason—self-interest calculus rooted in having the largest userbase at all costs, or currying favor with the current administration; or even some genuine intellectual conviction that every opinion deserves to be evaluated no matter the larger damage—has convinced itself that lying doesn't actually exist.
I'm trying to avoid kneejerk Facebook cynicism these days, so I'll say that Zuck is a smart, hyper-ambitious guy, and maybe he legitimately thinks he has some philosophical case for giving a voice to unstable people who believe Donald Trump is America's last bulwark against a future ruled by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles.
That second part, however, gives me strong reason to believe Facebook's tolerance for lies and weaponized misinformation is entirely about self-interest. The question put to Gleicher would have been a mindlessly easy softball for anyone who was sincere about eliminating lying.