Facebook takes down Britain First ads
1–10 of 136 posts
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#2“Political groups have been spending increasing amounts of money on Facebook adverts”
That’s because Cambridge Analytical was the instruction manual
All the hearings and dockets are better free content than any marketing guru’s online course
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#3Does anyone else remember when, circa ±2009, Zuckerberg used to frame Facebook as (in his words) a utility? What has happened since? The company grew and became more "normalized" and thus inline with the "company activist" model so prevalent today?
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#4As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#5“Political groups have been spending increasing amounts of money on Facebook adverts” That’s because Cambridge Analytical was the instruction manual All the hearings and dockets are better free content than any marketing guru’s online course
give me a break, Obama's team was allowed to suck up Facebook's entire social graph and also used an app to get the data for all of the app users friends without consent
https://www.fastcompany.com/40546816/obama-campaigns-targete...
Zuckerberg and Sandberg hosted events to raise money for Obama
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-harnessing-facebooks-soci...
The media called it genius and a good thing when obama used data and social media to win. Those dumb dinosaur conservatives were being left behind by tech savvy democrats. Now it's portrayed as evil when the reverse happened. Pure propaganda
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.htm...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#6As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.
I agree with you here. Details of this particular issue aside - the chilling effects are likely to have a significant impact in the future. I don’t generally agree with censorship, but in cases where it’s needed I think it must be objective and not subjective. Eg. “i’ll know it when i see it”.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#7Regardless of content I don't want to live in a world where corporate interests censor me.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#8Anyone remembers how the internet was going to liberate the expression, instead we got two, three bottlenecks manned (or is it personed?) by censors actively supported by the MSM and virtually the entire university system.
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#9As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.
The disagreement isn't really between those two things. It's whether such speech is actually political or a proxy for hate speech.
"We don't hire ethnic Muslims" vs. "We don't think you're a good culture-fit for this company."
Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads
#10As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.
Does this mean countries with nascent independence movements will be able to declare these movements "hate speech"? I don't see much difference. Let's say Chiapas rebels or Puerto Rico or Scotts’ Independence movement want to seek independence, can the government declare that hate speech and have all that taken down? If this argument sticks, I can’t see why the above isn’t in similar vein.