Your kids may have the day off and you may still have to go to work, but the good news is Login is here for you. Shh, Harvey, not now, I have to send the newsletter.
Today's Login is 1,223 words, by the way, a 4-minute read.
Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
An ad by Sen. Elizabeth Warren's campaign that says Facebook has endorsed President Trump (before admitting the claim is a lie) is having its intended effect: raising tough questions about Facebook's policy of allowing politicians to make any claims they want.
Why it matters: Facebook has spent much of the last 2 years talking about its efforts to protect elections. But while Facebook is cracking down on foreign interference and deliberate voter suppression, it is giving political candidates carte blanche to distort and deceive.
Driving the news:
Facebook responded on Twitter Saturday that broadcast stations across the country aired this ad nearly 1,000 times, as required by law. "FCC doesn't want broadcast companies censoring candidates' speech," Facebook said. "We agree it's better to let voters — not companies — decide."
Yes, but: The broadcast networks operate under unique rules because they are using public airwaves. Businesses operating in nearly every other type of media can (and often do) set their own rules, including cable, internet and outdoor media.
History lesson: Every company or person who has ever been in charge of a platform, a message board, or a comments area knows that trolls are going to take any rule about acceptable content and stress-test it from a zillion directions.
Facebook, for its part, has invested a lot in creating a more systematic approach to evaluating content, clarifying its community standards, bringing in third-party fact checkers, and setting up an independent "Supreme Court" appeals board to provide a final say. (Facebook says it's focusing the fact checkers' limited time on memes and hoaxes, not politicians' words.)
Facebook argues it should take a nearly completely hands-off approach to what politicians say in their paid advertisements, and it's not alone — many critics, as well, don't want to see the social network set the boundaries of political speech. (See below for just what the social network is and isn't allowing.)
My thought bubble: As political ads inevitably keep testing Facebook's boundaries, the company's best solution may be to stop taking them altogether (as some transit agencies have, for example) — trading a modest revenue loss for the opportunity not to be blamed for swinging a second election in a row.
Facebook may be giving political figures free rein to make false claims, but that doesn't mean they can say anything.
What Facebook won't let politicians say:
What politicians can say on Facebook:
Between the lines: Here's where it gets even messier. Politicians can take an already debunked claim and repeat it in their own ads. A regular user, meanwhile, can't take a false claim from a politician's ad and repeat the same words without violating Facebook's rules. They are, though, free to share that politician's ad.
The bottom line: Politicians still have a lot of room to mislead voters, especially when they can target different messages to different demographic groups.
Monday is the deadline for Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google to respond to demands for information about their businesses from House investigators probing competition in the tech industry, Axios' Margaret Harding McGill reports.
The big picture: The House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee sought communications from company executives and answers to a slew of questions about market power and acquisitions.
Be smart: It's unlikely the firms will respond in full today, but lawmakers can issue subpoenas if they believe the companies aren't complying in a timely manner. And while the questions were posted publicly, there are no immediate plans to publicly share the responses.
What's next: The antitrust subcommittee will hear from FTC commissioner Rohit Chopra and others Friday at its third hearing focused on online platforms, exploring data and privacy issues.
Photo: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images
San Francisco legislators have a new idea to tackle all the new tech that roams around their streets: an Office of Emerging Technologies. As Axios' Kia Kokalitcheva reports, the new office would dole out approvals to startups and companies wishing to unleash new gadgets and services on the city.
Why it matters: San Francisco is home to many tech companies that aim to reshape urban life, but the city has often seemed ill-prepared to deal with them, whether by welcoming or regulating them.
The details: The office, established in a bill proposed last Tuesday by Board of Supervisors President Norman Yee with the support of City Administrator Naomi Kelly, would be housed in the Department of Public Works.
Be smart: Because it would be housed in the Public Works department, the office's jurisdiction would be limited to sidewalks, storefronts and the like. It's not clear if it could regulate, for example, ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft or home-rental outfits like Airbnb.
When Hulu mixes up the captions for a "Golden Girls" episode with ones from "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," hilarity ensues.