Live data from Hacker News

Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

politico.com

61–70 of 215 posts

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#61
post #8
post #3

While she views Facebook as too powerful, it is ironic she is happy to provide as revenue to the company.

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.

A similar point was actually made about Twitter on Joe Rogan's podcast recently.

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#62
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Facebook has every right to take down the ad calling for breakup of Facebook.

This would suggest Facebook supports censorship

It's an ad, not organic content posted by users. If the latter were blocked, I could see it as censorship.

Should news be required to run ads that are critical of itself?

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#63

Serious 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…

Clearly, FB, the multibillion dollar international behemoth that is the go-to platform for communicating to other human beings and makes their money patrolling said communictions isn't quite comparable to your local retailer that's selling widgets. But we don't even need to get to the realm of social and political responsibility to see the problem with FB's behavior in this case - try taking FB at their word: "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."

Yes, these ads are not in FB's best interest, and they do not have an obligation to do business with any/all potential customers. The problem, of course, arises on two fronts: first, when FB twice approves an ad they themselves claim violates their policies; second, when FB claims to be a promoter of robust debate in reaction to critical press.

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#64
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the Warren Campaign was playing them, and they fell right into it. Because, by taking down her ads, they supported her point that they have too much power to control debate. That is, that they've become a monopoly. So they either need to be very careful not to abuse their monopoly, or be highly regulated, or be broken up. Edit: Stole from ktjfi. [and spelling]

Pretty genius strategy, she’ll also gain support from traditional media companies which have been battling Facebook lately.

Especially because they were $100 limited-reach ads. So she got lots of notice from ~no investment.

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#65

Serious 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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Facebook has a monopoly.

What’s their monopoly on? Serious question. Too many people like using fb so we break them up? lolwut. Is fb actively stifling competition? Is there a market failure?

Their monopoly is on discourse and dissemination of information.

I'm going to sound a bit paternalistic and anti-capitalist here, because I am. Facebook is no longer just a company, it's an institution that should definitely be regulated. It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. There was plenty of fake information on facebook around the 2016 election that influenced uneducated/uncritical/unintelligent voters' opinions of the candidates. Having content curation guidelines that are informed by non-facebook entities almost certainly is needed, imo.

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#67
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s their monopoly on? Serious question. Too many people like using fb so we break them up? lolwut. Is fb actively stifling competition? Is there a market failure?

> What’s their monopoly on? Serious question. Too many people like using fb so we break them up? lolwut. Yes, basically. Or at least, they have a partial monopoly on social media. > Is fb actively stifling competition? They've been buying competitors. That's classic monopolistic behavior to stifle competition. > Is there a market failure? Pretty damn close. Even Google couldn't moose its way in.

Google doesn’t like to actively compete though. It’s always been very quick to discontinue products, shrug its shoulders, and say “nevermind”.

It would be interesting to see Google release some sort of decentralized open source social networking software connected to Google Play. Something like Android, but for social networks. I could see FB being bothered by that.

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#68
post #31

Serious 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…

> 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? I think this is a valid point, but it depends on the community the store is in and what it's selling. What if it's in a town that just had a school shooting and is selling fully automatic rifles? The store owner do…

I honestly don't think you should even be taking this comparison seriously at all. It'll just open up this side of the argument to straw man attacks.

One is a store that sells things to customers, another is a company that has productized at-least 1/7 of the Earth's population...

Re: Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

#69
post #27

Serious 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 on…

> or a bar evicting someone who politely disagreed with the owner

Is this supposed to be an example of something unreasonable?

Of course a publican can ask anyone to leave their bar for any reason or not reason at all, as long as it's not because of a protected characteristic. I think that's extremely reasonable.

Post reply on HN