Thats overreach on her part too, however. do her voters realize what this means about her relationship with the press after she gets elected? or maybe she is rehashing trump's entire tirades about corrupt media etc.
Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
21–30 of 215 posts
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#22Just curious, how many out there use some type of Facebook ad-blocking solution?
My Facbook ad-blocking solution has been to: 1 - quit Facebook 2 - use /etc/hosts to resolve any Facebook-related sites (and other advertising/spam/tracking/malware sites) to 255.255.255.255 3 - proxy my web requests through privoxy 4 - use the uMatrix and uBlock Origin addons in Firefox that block anything that gets through the rest But I mostly browse the web through emacs-w3m, which isn't even capable of running j…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not ironic, this is the entire point she is trying to make. It is impossible to reach a meaningful chunk of the public today without going through Facebook, and they have the ability to filter content as they see fit.
So is that really going to change if Facebook is broken up? More importantly, is it going to make for a better web, or is it just going to wind up strengthening the online tracking and advertising industries in the long run? My own proposal would be to ban tracking and unsolicited advertising altogether -- no matter who does it.
So is that really going to change if Facebook is broken up?
Yes. When was the last time you had a call dropped because you were saying unflattering things about your carrier?
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#24Serious question(s), not trolling. Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company? How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing? Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of…
I think Facebook has every right to take down the ad calling for breakup of Facebook.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#25Serious question(s), not trolling. Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company? How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing? Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of…
Because Facebook has a monopoly.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#26Clever strategy by Elizabeth Warren. The ads might be effective in promoting her platform by themselves. And if the media report on the apparent irony, or FB takes them down, that gives her more publicity. FB's actions may cause a Streisland-like effect as well.
> The ads were limited in size and reach, with each costing under $100, according to disclosure details listed online.
Indeed, it's incredible how cheap it was.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#27Serious question(s), not trolling. Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company? How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing? Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes at the heart of…
Facebook bills itself as a communications platform which follows rules which this didn’t violate so this is more akin to a newspaper refusing to run an ad which criticized them or a bar evicting someone who politely disagreed with the owner. Even if they successfully avoided regulation as a monopoly I would not be surprised if this led to people suing them for content which they didn’t take down on the theory that once you make arbitrary editorial decisions you’re responsible for everything.
At the very least it would also give pause to all of the media companies whose content has made them so much money, since you’d have to ask which other areas would be meddled with. That doesn’t need to be a legal process to have an impact on their business.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#28Breakup Facebook rhetoric is so counterproductive. It achieves nothing. It solves no problem.
The country has real problems. “I don’t like Facebook” isn’t even remotely one of them. I won’t be voting for her, that’s for sure.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is that really going to change if Facebook is broken up? More importantly, is it going to make for a better web, or is it just going to wind up strengthening the online tracking and advertising industries in the long run? My own proposal would be to ban tracking and unsolicited advertising altogether -- no matter who does it.
So is that really going to change if Facebook is broken up? Yes. When was the last time you had a call dropped because you were saying unflattering things about your carrier?
How's breaking them up going to stop that?
Usage policies and how these companies handle what's said about them by their users seem completely orthogonal to whether they're one company or many.
Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup
#30> Facebook confirms it took down Elizabeth Warren's ads about Facebook, but is in the process of restoring them. > FB spox: "We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use of our corporate logo. In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are restoring the ads.” https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1105241057007087616
The terms of service suggest that any ad that discusses Facebook is ripe for removal. Her point stands and is expanded by the selective enforcement of their ToS; is this the platform for public discourse that we want for ourselves and do we want any such platform to be this powerful?
To be fair, I have in the past had ads automatically 'removed' in approval process which use the logo that have nothing to do with FB, just happen to use the logo. Same with 'March Madness.' They have automated approvals which catch use of the logo.