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

We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

news.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 353 posts

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#101

Post by jabagonuts »

> VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.

Playing devil’s advocate here, but maybe Facebook doesn’t waste time on people who don’t actually buy ads? Would be a much more compelling argument if the were actually able to purchase and run ads, and would be curious to see if the actual act of payment triggered a real review from Facebook.

This kind of feels like me as a software developer saying my code works in production! Disclaimer: I never actually deployed it, I only got approval to deploy it.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#102

Post by qubax »

hadrien01 wrote: post #33

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.

I disagree. Not only is that against the first amendment and it is discriminatory. Why should political ads be allowed on other platforms, but not on social media or the web? And why should non-political ads allowed on social media or the web?

Maybe tightening up ad selection, but banning ads or speech isn't the answer.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#103

Post by TomMckenny »

matthewowen wrote: post #87
na85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.

This is a tiresome argument. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press (ie, the printing press). The clear aim is to guarantee not just the right to speech, but also the right to _distribute_ that speech. In fact, without that the right to freedom of speech is of limited value. This doesn't mean Facebook couldn't ban political ads, but it does mean it would be unreasonable for the government to do so.

One could just as easily the aim is to protect political graffiti. Especially given the actions of the founders during the revolution.

The choice of protecting money is a strategic one, not one of judicial sobriety. And as we expect from that kind of ruling, it falls exactly along the political lines of the appointing president.

It is an extrapolation to suppose the founders intended allowing every avenue of distribution regardless of outcome. It's just as (un)clear the founders would be appalled at the current tight feedback from campaign finance which in many cases is indistinguishable from bribery.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#104

Post by akiselev »

matthewowen wrote: post #87
na85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.

This is a tiresome argument. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press (ie, the printing press). The clear aim is to guarantee not just the right to speech, but also the right to _distribute_ that speech. In fact, without that the right to freedom of speech is of limited value. This doesn't mean Facebook couldn't ban political ads, but it does mean it would be unreasonable for the government to do so.

And yet we regulate swear words and nude imagery on broadcast television because the airwaves are a limited public resource.

First ammendment absolutism in the face of rapidly changing technology is way more tiresome.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#105

Post by duskwuff »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #45
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #6

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…

That seems like an intended feature. I think that AWS GovCloud isn't designed for classified information, or for Government use only. 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 U…

Two words: "government contractors".

Restricting GovCloud to government entities would leave contractors in the awkward position of being unable to use AWS for government contracts.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#106

Post by lawlessquestion »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43
hadrien01 wrote: post #33

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…

The government can limit speech if they have a compelling reason (the governments reasoning outweighs the persons freedom of speech, think yelling fire in a crowded theater). If the government has a compelling reason they can only limit the speech in the most narrowly tailored way to accomplish their goal and still allow the most freedom of speech possible.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#107

Post by thaumaturgy »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43
hadrien01 wrote: post #33

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…

I too love idealism, but I have to wonder just how broken things have to get before people begin to accept that a thing that sounds good in theory just doesn't work right in the real world?

In theory, unregulated free markets are always self-correcting. In theory, socialism works great. In theory, uninhibited free speech is one of the pillars of a free society.

So if we start seeing torrential downpour of misleading ads with a "paid for" line that's a total lie, making it harder still for people to figure out what positions actually do belong to a candidate, will that be broken enough then?

I mean, we've already got pharmaceutical advertising, massive media conglomerates muddying the waters, and a huge rise in hate speech that's dehumanizing people to the extent that they're being mass-murdered.

We already accept a number of reasonable limits on speech. Society hasn't imploded yet, at least not for that reason, anyway. I think you've gotta do better here than "it's a slippery slope".

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#108

Post by Jonanin »

This article is a clickbait smear at best. They didn't actually get to run any ads, because you need a valid SSN and Driver's license to do so. The only thing they demonstrated is their ability to break federal laws by impersonating senators.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#109

Post by astura »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #45
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #6

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…

That seems like an intended feature. I think that AWS GovCloud isn't designed for classified information, or for Government use only. 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 U…

>GovCloud seems like it's just some box-checking activity to ensure that there aren't any foreigners interacting with the system.

This is exactly it; it's a compliance thing. GovCloud is compliant with various regulations that the government has for its data handling and storage

GovCloud is used by private entities that are doing business with the government - for example, contractors.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#110

Post by scythe »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43
hadrien01 wrote: post #33

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…

The freedom Facebook enjoys is not really the freedom of speech. It is the freedom of the press, the freedom to publish. Same amendment, different purpose.

What is less clear is: to what extent is Facebook the press? The press, in 1789, could not send you push notifications. It was not gamified with the intent of increasing user engagement. It was not interwoven with a person's private communications with their friends. It did not encourage users to build "profile pages" on which they hang their reputations and opinions. Someone might have seen you reading The Federalist Papers, but everything else was up to you.

Any of these provides a legal avenue to regulate Facebook without cheapening the broad freedoms prescribed to actual publishers. James Madison never dreamed that a Senator would send messages to his constituents that make their phones buzz when they aren't being looked at. In my unvarnished opinion, that's not freedom of the press, it's something else.

Post reply on HN