241–250 of 353 posts
Perhaps we could mandate a shutdown of Facebook and Twitter 1 week prior to elections. This wouldn't impede citizens' ability to exercise their first amendment right to speak, as there are many, many other outlets for citizens' speech. This would temporarily remove two channels through which manipulators can scale damage instantly. That would help. I think the benefit of doing something like this would be so useful t…
People need to think very carefully about the consequences of any policy they propose to curb this sort of behavior. Do we really want Facebook making judgment calls about the content of political ads? Do they need to do thorough real-life identity verification of people buying any ads, or any ads that may be construed as political? Then the real kicker: does every ad provider need to do this, or just the ones that a…
> Then the real kicker: does every ad provider need to do this, or just the ones that are too big to fail? Requiring that level of effort would quash small ad providers in the same way that onerous copyright verification laws would quash small content hosts. It comes down to what you think is more important. Lessening false advertising that manipulates the democratic process (and of course the big question is to what…
Should change to "or having an environment conducive to businesses that might want to advertise." A big difference in terms of scope of the affected.
This is why I am not a part or participate in Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is, because a senator could conceivably be running ads, then any ad that claims to be by a senator should be approved without scrutiny? Besides being preposterous, that same argument applies to literally anybody in the world except, I guess, Mark Zuckerberg. So it sounds like Facebook's algorithm for detecting abuse is `if submitter == "Mark Zuckerberg" { reject(); }`
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are 1, 2 and 3?
Test accounts which ended up getting deleted before (presumably) auth worked.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it only proves they reject ads from the founder of the company. That’s the only proof you can establish based on the facts. There is no evidence they are vetting anything, and in fact it’s more likely they just filter out zuck.* than the implication that a larger system is at work (Occams razor).
Hahaha my god dude. First, he said it seems to indicate, not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, you think it’s more likely that they filter every single request specifically for Zuckerberg, but do all of the other filtering later on in the pipeline? It’s much more likely that all the filtering happens at the one time, especially at a place like Facebook where most engineers seem to focus on optimising something…
I believe the parent comment was claiming there is no general filter and/or vetting for others - only for Zuck.
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.
Kaepernick is banned from the NFL in the same sense I am - no team wants him because he isn't good enough for the price he wants.
I don't understand. What is expected from Facebook concerning political ads? Should Facebook do the work of fact checking on behalf of viewers, instead of users fact checking on their own? Why is it that actual fact checking is being outsourced to social media companies (due to fear of foreign influence)? Should we also outsource voting too then?
Where is the NSA in all of this?