41–50 of 353 posts
The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…
The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…
We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that many people throughout history have warned us not to do.
I think (and I don't think this is an uncommon position in America) that some political ads on facebook is way less of an evil than letting our government dictate what is allowed to be said by whom and when. No thanks.
Do the engineers at Facebook realise the level of ad that their networks are now throwing out? It is at the level that warez and cracks site were in the early 90s. Granted they're not pop-ups or porn but they _are_ scams. Out of sheer interest I've been checking them out recently and my highlights have been:
* Cypto-scams stealing HTML and CSS from legitimate newsites and pretending to be articles on how much money someone made crypto-trading using their product.
* A vaguely sophisticated Asian brides website where all of the users are bots that try to get you to spend money to use the website.
When I was fifteen years old, I knew the risk of going to those sorts of sites but Facebook is used by Grandparents and children. The sort of ads that Facebook is currently serving is genuinely _not_ cool and I encourage anyone near to that problem to step up and sort it out.
I've seen these ads in my feed and since reporting them now they only appear in the right hand pane as "sponsored ads" but I can't report them when they appear there for some reason.
Here's a link to what I considered to be the most egregious example:
That advertiser cycles their domain(s) every week or so as well.
I’ve noticed on AWS I can sign up for and get an AWSGov account from my plain old personal account. It fully works, I can run EC2 Servers, get a weird style government bill that I have to pay, etc. Also, can anyone really believe Facebooks first attempts on this would be any kind of successful? Just a year ago their fake news plan was to link to verification about articles to facts on WIKIPEDIA. Do they not know how…
From the advertising page:
> The region is operated by employees who are U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The region is only accessible to vetted U.S. entities and root account holders, who must confirm they are U.S. Persons to gain access to this region.
As long as you've proved you're a US Entity, it seems like you should be able to use GovCloud.
GovCloud seems like it's just some box-checking activity to ensure that there aren't any foreigners interacting with the system. Other than that, it's not any different from normal AWS regions.
The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we do the same with TV and billboards? >Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns.
That's how it's done in my country, France: candidates can't pay for political ads. They have equally-sized and free-to-use billboards in front of public buildings [0] and a free one-minute-and-a-half-per-day ad space on public television [1]. That's it. [0] http://dspagnou.celeonet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/degra... [1] For fun, the 2017 ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__Il8Z7lrg
I'd like to see more of this type of 'stress testing' of adtech networks, conducted by third parties, with the methodology and results made available to the public. Programmatic advertising is a black box as far as ad buyers and ad viewers are concerned. And it is exactly for this reason that companies can claim to have "machine learning based fraud detection systems" or whatever and have those claims go unchallenged…