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

221–230 of 353 posts

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

#221

Post by bluecalm »

cle wrote: post #199
manigandham wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you communicate to millions of people then? What is your strategy? Visit every single person's home?

Do you not recognize the irony of asking this question on Hacker News? And for an additional layer of irony, Hacker News doesn't advertise either (that I'm aware of).

HN regularly ban/kill political topics. Good or bad some topics don't belong here even if popular among users. Things like: "I want to be a governorn of Y region or representative of X country, here is my program" either won't get any traction or be killed. Buying ads is the cheapest and most effective way of getting eyes to your ideas. It's great it became more accessible. No wonder ruling elites in Europe want it banned tough.

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

#222

Post by bluecalm »

ddingus wrote: post #201
manigandham wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you communicate to millions of people then? What is your strategy? Visit every single person's home?

Do what that progressive in New York did to challenge the #4 Democrat in the house and win. (Osario-Cortez) She did exactly that. Campaign was as follows: Identify policy platform and benefit to winning majority of voters. Identify win numbers. Two of hers were Medicare for All and Living Wages. Organize volunteers to canvass. Break it down and insure coverage. Canvass, hold events, town hall, rallies, etc... Continu…

All those things are very expensive and someone without significant backing won't be able to afford them. Ads are cheaper and more effective, especially when you're just starting and don't know if you should invest more of your time and money.

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

#223

Post by lozenge »

mrguyorama wrote: post #9
josefresco wrote: post #5

"In announcing new transparency efforts or tools to combat foreign influence, Facebook included a caveat. “These changes will not prevent abuse entirely. We’re up against smart, creative and well-funded adversaries who change their tactics as we spot abuse,” Leathern wrote. But we believe that they will help prevent future interference in elections on Facebook. And it is why they are so important.” But posing as 100…

I wonder how many times "Zuckerberg" is in the code verbatim

I wouldn't be surprised if it were verboten. The leaked Windows NT source code had plenty of swearing, no references to Bill Gates.

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

#224

Post by r_singh »

In the capitalist world that we live in, such things shouldn't surprise us at all.

Cigarette shops sell kids cigarettes without checking for ID. Heck doctors sell questionable products to helpless patrons. Facebook sells ads to politically motivated buyers without cross-checking who's buying.

The only thing that surprises me about this is that this leniency in vetting buyers potentially has an effect on who will remain in power and so should be a priority for the govt. to fix or require stricter regulation. Prods me think whether they're actually benefitting from this or just don't have time and are turning a blind eye due to coincidental reasons.

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

#225

Post by lozenge »

lozaning wrote: post #130
TomMckenny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.

>It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. This is a laughable claim once one considers blasphemy laws that still exist in many western democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447 - Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments [2017]

There are plenty of anti free speech laws and precedent in the US as well, you just have to look for them. Only if you accept the exact American definition of free speech, then of course other countries look bad by that standard.

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

#226

Post by StreamBright »

dillondoyle wrote: post #209

I buy political ads as a big part of our business. This cycle, FB is FAR easier to work with than Google. I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the liability to ad buyer (who signed an affidavit to run those paid for ads... and Vice broke that contract but also probably the law). Whereas Google is giving huge problems for basically all our clients because they seem to be doing manual DD. Not focusing on wh…

>>> I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the liability to ad buyer

Totally. It is Russia's responsibility not to accidentally or knowingly meddle with an election, not Facebook's. I guess there is one last question, what was Zuckerberg doing in a congressional hearing?

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

#227

Post by hadrien01 »

tokyodude wrote: post #158
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…

what's a political ad? Is an ad for a Michael Moore movie a poltical ad given his movies are poltical?

Wouldn't they be classified as documentaries?

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

#228

Post by mfukar »

coffeemug wrote: post #165
manigandham wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Advertising is not bribery and the European region is nowhere near the freedom of speech principles of the US. It may feel the same, either because you have never said anything or have never been heard by anyone who cares, but there are countless examples of prosecution that would be summarily dismissed here in the States. Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. Athletes c…

> Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. This line of reasoning never made sense to me. Free speech is both a legal and a cultural issue. A modern society cannot credibly claim to be free on legal grounds alone. Yeah, the government won't put me in prison or fine me, but if I get fired for being a staunch liberal (or conservative) then I'm not really free, am I? This doesn't just apply t…

It's a very simple concept:

You are allowed to say things. You are assuming responsibility for, i.e. accepting the consequences of, your right to say things.]

Society is then free to cast you out if you say hateful things. You say this society is not free. This is meaningless to this society, it has chosen to operate on assumptions which are fundamentally incompatible with your behaviour.

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

#230

Post by tokyodude »

hadrien01 wrote: post #227
tokyodude wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's a political ad? Is an ad for a Michael Moore movie a poltical ad given his movies are poltical?

Wouldn't they be classified as documentaries?

if it's lobbying for one idea over another how is it not political? Moore is known to be left leaning and his movies are known to strongly push for leftist policies directly or indirectly for candidates. If he releases his "documentary" a month before an election it's pretty clear he means to influence the voters so how is that not really a political ad for the candidates for his favored party?
Post reply on HN