Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 218 posts

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#81

Post by stuckinarut »

rayiner wrote: post #62
RubenSandwich wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, quite a few of these are very xenophobic. Very much playing off of an anti Middle East sentiment. I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this document: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu... . 2924.jpg 2966.jpg 2968.jpg

What is "xenophobic" about those three images? Turkey is currently undergoing a very public internal war between western secularism and Islamic fundamentalism. Why would a western country want to enter into democratic union with such a country at this stage? Not every judgment regarding other countries is "xenophobic." Imagine if Alabama or Mississippi were trying to join the U.S. today. Would it be "xenophobic" of C…

Okay, so 1 out of 5. Is there explanations for the other 4? The other just focus on those countries being poorer.

But 2949 is also there. 2963. 2966-68. 2990. 2991-94. 3018-19. etc...

2926 followed by 2927 is pretty funny.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#82

Post by tathougies »

RubenSandwich wrote: post #22
kodablah wrote: post #3

Starting reading an article on some info handed over, ended up reading a politicized article. Can someone link me the source this article is using for the new news? I'm having a hard time finding it in the inline links of the text. EDIT: Via [0], I found the docs at [1]. Tech Crunch is a shameful, op-ed joke of a site. 0 - https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/1022437025667014656 1 - https://www.parliament.uk/docu…

Wow, quite a few of these are very xenophobic. Very much playing off of an anti Middle East sentiment. I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this document: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu... . 2924.jpg 2966.jpg 2968.jpg

2966 and 2968 are about what the new borders of the UK would effectively be if Turkey is allowed to join the EU. Regardless of your thoughts on the Middle East, it is clear that there are dangerous people in Iraq. Given that the EU has open borders and markets (for the most part), isn't it a germaine discussion if that supranational entity wants to enlarge its borders to include ports of entry from a somewhat unstable country? I mean... britain wouldn't be the ones policing the border, it would be turkey. Yet, those crossing the border would have some rights to enter and work in Britain, right?

I mean, in the US, the Mexican border is a rather scary place. For a long time, some of the American border towns were the kidnapping capitals of the world mainly due to their proximity to the border. Who you border certainly matters to your country's security.

2924 makes sense to me in the context of the other statistics. It does seem strange to include two countries with such large wage and economic disparities in the same 'federal' system (which is effectively what the EU is).

EDIT: I find your claims of xenophobia even less compelling after I viewed what the British have to say about Spain (bullfighting), Norway (whale hunting), France (unemployment), Portugal (unemployment), etc. Unless you claim that any kind of criticism of an outside country is xenophobia, the Leave campaign seems quite comprehensive in its criticisms of EU member countries (and potential members).

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#84

Post by walshemj »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #71
stale2002 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so I guess that means that all of the democratically elected parties are currently in favor of brexit. That's democracy for you. If you don't like it then people should vote for someone else. The fact that these major parties are committed to enforcing brexit IS the democracy.

Mmmm, I think that’s unfortunately both technically correct and not that helpful. Both major parties in the UK are commited to a policy that has around 50% support from the electorate. Because there are long-term issues that make the massive sudden support for an alternative party unlikely, this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that p…

Are you counting those excluded from the vote in this ?

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#85

Post by Xylakant »

oh_sigh wrote: post #79
contrast wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the equivalent here would be saying "vote for me or my opponent will force a stranger into your house". The ads are lies targeted at people whose xenophobia is stronger than their grip on the facts.

Wouldn't turkey joining the EU mean that Turkish citizens would have the right to freely emigrate to the UK?

That would be one of the consequences, yes. However, Turkey isn’t even remotely close to joining the EU and given the current political situation in Turkey I would not expect talks to move forward any time soon. So pretending there’s even a remote chance is disingenuous. It uses fears of foreigner not founded in reality. That’s pretty much the definition of xenophobic.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#86

Post by fareesh »

clort wrote: post #50
morsma wrote: post #34

What about the effect Obama had, when he supported UK remaining in the EU? How many percent did his endorsement move?

AFAIK Obama didn't break the law so his contribution is not under question I think your questions could be seen as whataboutism[0], but as an answer I do know somebody who was furious that Obama was "telling us what to do" and subsequently voted leave. I don't know anybody who voted remain but was obviously swayed by Obama. Sample size is small but thats what I know. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Justice is about equality before the law. It is unjust for one party to do something and be punished, while another party does something that is principly the same, and is not punished.

Citing "whataboutism" does not make this go away, it is the essence of the argument.

If Joe is disqualified from his hockey tournament for throwing his stick, but Mike receives an eye-roll from the same referee, it should not be criticized as whataboutism to say "What about Mike?" - it is a legitimate complaint, because there is injustice in the way both incidents are dealt with.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#87

Post by DannyBee »

gmueckl wrote: post #44
kodablah wrote: post #3

Starting reading an article on some info handed over, ended up reading a politicized article. Can someone link me the source this article is using for the new news? I'm having a hard time finding it in the inline links of the text. EDIT: Via [0], I found the docs at [1]. Tech Crunch is a shameful, op-ed joke of a site. 0 - https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/1022437025667014656 1 - https://www.parliament.uk/docu…

Hm... Care to point out the bias? They write about some of the most blatant examples of manipulative lying ads that only carefully picked groups of people got to see before the referendum. What else should they have reported on the topic of the contents of the released data? They didn't even pick some of most tasteless/fearmongering/lying ads that were run.

Here's some unnecessary bias it starts off with: " behind the curtain of Facebook’s unregulated ad platform"

The word unregulated here is both unnecessary (it's not relevant to the sentence it's in) and meant specifically to get the reader to draw a negative connotation.

Even the title, where it says "finally", is doing it's best to give a negative connotation and imply facebook has been stalling turning them over.

AFAIK from the facts they list (i haven't gone looking hard, though), they were requested, they turned them over. There is no "finally". The article does not give any fact to support it. Same with "the company eventually did so, " Again, this is just meant to sound as negative as possible. As far as i can tell from the facts, they responded within the timeline they were asked to respond.

It then goes on to try to draw and invite the reader to draw tenuous inferences (or does so itself - using the meaningless phrase "linked", usually a good sign of smearing) and does its best to assassinate in a subtle way.

This article certainly has facts in it, but it is definitely not unbiased.

(and for the record, i hate facebook, i'm not defending it, i'm just trying to answer your question in as objective a way i can :P)

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#88

Post by tathougies »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #71
stale2002 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so I guess that means that all of the democratically elected parties are currently in favor of brexit. That's democracy for you. If you don't like it then people should vote for someone else. The fact that these major parties are committed to enforcing brexit IS the democracy.

Mmmm, I think that’s unfortunately both technically correct and not that helpful. Both major parties in the UK are commited to a policy that has around 50% support from the electorate. Because there are long-term issues that make the massive sudden support for an alternative party unlikely, this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that p…

> this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.

Since when in the UK has your ability to voice dissent been denied? Doesn't the UK have freedom of protest? Can't you just protest your government and speak against its policies without fear of repercussion?

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#89

Post by untog »

morsma wrote: post #56
matthewmacleod wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not and should not be illegal for anybody to make their views on political issues known. It’s much more questionable when we start to look at organised funding and lobbying. We have those rules specifically to prevent elections being bought with cash.

When Merkel donated 5 million Euro to the Hillary Clinton campaign, was that then a foreign entity interfering/manipulating in an election?

Put down the Infowars koolaid. That literally never happened.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#90

Post by NeonVice »

lumberjack wrote: post #51
dillondoyle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because 1st Amendment gives right to anonymous speech: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity Perhaps because it gives established players a big leg up in terms of compliance costs (imagine being a small news site having to create this searchable system etc)

The 1st Amendment is just US law. What would be the argument elsewhere?

Retaliation by employers for funding certain speech. Violent retaliation for funding certain speech.
Post reply on HN