Truth in advertising - whose truth?
A current insistence is that things said on social media - Facebook, Twitter and the like - must be true. Sometimes this is insisted upon just about commercial advertising, sometimes about political such and, appallingly, at times about any statement whatsoever. The appalling coming from the fact that freedom of speech does indeed include the freedom to be wrong, even to lie.
The problem with this is the same one we’ve got about any declaration of what is the truth - sez ‘oo? As an example:
Facebook has quietly removed false and misleading ads about HIV-prevention medications after months of pressure from LGBTQ+ and health organizations.
Fifty organizations including Glaad and PrEP4All started a public campaign in December, arguing that the social media platform was putting “real people’s lives in imminent danger” by refusing to remove targeted ads containing medically incorrect claims about the side effects of HIV-prevention medications such as Truvada.
The ads highlighted by the campaign were largely run by personal injury lawyers seeking potential clients, and falsely claimed medications like Truvada could cause severe kidney and liver damage.
But “PrEP is safe and generally well-tolerated,” Trevor Hoppe, a sociologist of sexuality, medicine and the law, previously told the Guardian. “Any misinformation to the contrary is likely bad for public health, especially communities hardest hit like gay men in the US.”
That PrEP is generally safe and well tolerated is true. But then so is penicillin and that will still kill some people. Vaccines are generally safe and well tolerated and yet they kill perhaps 1 in a million given them - which is why we have vaccine compensation funds in this country and the US.
Just for the avoidance of doubt we’re all in favour of things like Truvada. People like having sex, the drug reduces the ill effects of their doing so. We like things that reduce the ill effects of what people enjoy doing - statins allow palatable diets into our dotage too, why wouldn’t we be in favour?
But we do get, along with this insistence that we can only handle the truth, this problem of whose truth? For Truvada can indeed cause liver problems:
Truvada can cause serious, life-threatening side effects. These include a buildup of lactic acid in the blood (lactic acidosis) and liver problems.
That’s the US Government and this is the Mayo Clinic:
Two rare but serious reactions to this medicine are lactic acidosis (too much acid in the blood) and liver toxicity, which includes an enlarged liver. These are more common if you are female, very overweight (obese), or have been taking anti-HIV medicines for a long time.
So now the pursuit of truth in advertising leads to the banning of people stating a truth - Truvada can cause liver problems. True, we’re not greatly worried that ambulance chasing lawyers get their business model curbed and yet, actually, we are.
For we come back to this basic point. Who gets to define that truth that is all that can be said - or advertised? The only answer we can come up with which is consistent with maintaining freedom and liberty themselves, let alone freedom of speech, is that no one should have that power because no one is to be trusted with it. As here, activists in favour of the prescribing of Truvada insisting that plain and simple truths may not be stated.
We wouldn’t trust ourselves with that power either - the philosopher kings capable of righteously ordering society simply do not, never have done and never will, exist.
We might even start off the new year with some ancient wisdom - quis custodiet ipsos custodies? For this current idea that what we may say publicly is to be determined by every grouping with a grudge or an agenda is going to mean that we’ll only be allowed to say what is approved of by those with a grudge or agenda.