Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president of global affairs and communications, confirmed the approach to politicians’ posts during a speech Tuesday. He said:

“We have a responsibility to protect the platform from outside interference, and to make sure that when people pay us for political ads we make it as transparent as possible. But it is not our role to intervene when politicians speak.

“That’s why I want to be really clear today – we do not submit speech by politicians to our independent fact-checkers, and we generally allow it on the platform even when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules.

“Of course, there are exceptions. Broadly speaking they are two-fold: where speech endangers people; and where we take money, which is why we have more stringent rules on advertising than we do for ordinary speech and rhetoric.”

The company previously said content reviewers wouldn’t remove a politician’s post for breaking its rules if it was deemed newsworthy. Since the platform says it essentially views all politicians’ posts as newsworthy, they aren’t going anywhere.

Facebook uses third-party fact checkers to determine the veracity of content. But a post isn’t eligible for a fact check rating if it “contains a claim that is not verifiable, was true at the time of writing, or from a website or Page with the primary purpose of expressing the opinion or agenda of a political figure.” That policy has been in place for over a year, former British deputy prime minister Clegg noted.

“I know some people will say we should go further. That we are wrong to allow politicians to use our platform to say nasty things or make false claims. But imagine the reverse,” he said. “Would it be acceptable to society at large to have a private company in effect become a self-appointed referee for everything that politicians say? I don’t believe it would be. In open democracies, voters rightly believe that, as a general rule, they should be able to judge what politicians say themselves.”

Facebook is effectively taking a hands-off approach to politicians’ posts, if not their ads. It seems likely the stance will allow campaigns to spread lies, harassment and nastiness across Facebook’s vast network, as long as they’re not paying for promoted posts. Fact checking content elsewhere on the platform will be less effective if the political classes can post whatever they like, unburdened of Facebook’s guidelines. If they post misinformation, users might take that at face value, and Facebook won’t point out that they’re not telling the truth. That’s a risky approach that might well lead to deeper confusion among voters.

The company might very well be trying to appease critics who have accused it of stifling conservative speech. Still, the policy raises plenty of questions, despite Facebook’s attempt at clarifying it. Clegg didn’t define how Facebook determines whether someone is a politician (just elected officials? Candidates? Former congresspeople?), nor is it clear how Facebook determines whether a post could lead to violence.

Twitter also sees politicians’ tweets as broadly newsworthy and typically won’t remove them, but it’s adding a label to posts that violate its terms of service. It also clearly draws the line on who the rule applies to: verified accounts representing a person being considered for a government position, elected officials and candidates. They also need to have at least 100,000 followers.

The company has previously provided French judges with data it has related to people suspected of terrorism and violent acts. Facebook’s head of global affairs Nick Clegg and O met last week, and the company has reportedly agreed to expand its data sharing practices to hate speech suspects. Engadget has contacted Facebook for comment.

O said Facebook’s decision came after talks between it and French officials, beginning with a meeting last year between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg France’s president Emmanuel Macron, who’s been open about his ambition to regulate hate speech and disinformation. Macron’s party has a majority in France’s parliament, which is considering legislation that would grant powers to fine tech companies up to 4 percent of their worldwide revenue if they aren’t effective enough in curbing hate speech.

Until now, Facebook had declined to provide details on hate speech suspects as it wasn’t obligated to do so, and it was reportedly concerned the data might be abused without an independent judiciary in place. Facebook said in November it would cooperate with a French investigation into its content moderation policies and systems, with a focus on how it addresses hate speech.

Meanwhile, O said in an interview that France will lay out a framework requiring platforms to remove dangerous or illegal content from the internet within 24 hours. A body will be set up to provide guidelines on what should be deemed hateful or insulting. He said there has to be a balance between affording freedom of expression and protecting citizens.

Clegg contended that Facebook was really a large firm made of “many smaller pieces,” each competing against multiple rivals, and wasn’t dominant in some markets. It had ‘just’ 20 percent of the US online ad space, for instance. The ex-politician also maintained that antitrust law was meant to protect customers by ensuring low prices and high quality, not to “punish” a company over disagreements or its size. “Big in itself isn’t bad,” he said.

The exec instead suggested that there should be more regulations to hold companies to account and ensure that rules were “consistent” with governments’ values. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberk was meeting French President Emmanuel Macron to argue for more legislative answers.

It’s not certain that the op-ed will sway political leaders considering a Facebook break-up. While the company characterizes itself as a host of smaller teams competing in different fields, politicians like Elizabeth Warren have asserted that Facebook acquires companies like Instagram and WhatsApp precisely to swallow up competition. And while size by itself doesn’t amount to an antitrust violation, Facebook routinely mentions that it services roughly a quarter of the human population — that’s a massive amount of influence by any stretch. The site may need a more detailed response if it’s ever faced with a potential split.