Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 215 posts

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

#71

Post by gmueckl »

Pharmakon wrote: post #23
pmoriarty wrote: post #20

Earlier 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?

When was the last time a user post/private message was deleted by Facebook that wad saying unflattering things about that company? Let's compare apples to apples.

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

#72

Post by int_19h »

ktjfi wrote: post #43
tracer4201 wrote: post #38

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?

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Using your monopoly to do things you can't do if you're not a monopoly can be illegal depending on the circumstances.

And Warren's proposal aims to change exactly that.

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

#73

Post by nopriorarrests »

as300 wrote: post #66
tracer4201 wrote: post #38

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?

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 in…

> It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true.

This is the exact reason why Russia blocked (or at least tried to) block Telegram, and why Facebook is banned in China.

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

#74

Post by dgudkov »

mirimir wrote: post #44
justboxing wrote: post #19

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…

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]

>That is, that they've become a monopoly.

Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.

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

#75

Post by cm2012 »

almost_usual wrote: post #54
cm2012 wrote: post #51

This was done algorthmically. No doubt about it.

Does it matter?

Sure. That algorithmic rule is to prevent people from pretending to be FB or pretending to have FB's authority in ads (the you can't use the fb logo rule). It wasn't meant to target critics of FB.

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

#76

Post by int_19h »

dmix wrote: post #14
gatherhunterer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I thought Warren’s demographic loves having top down moderation-heavy social networks?

It depends. There are specific things that FB has done that makes their censorship unwelcome in many leftie circles - e.g. the real name policy is seen as transphobic by many, and their "indecent content" standards as sexist. They have also removed comments such as "all white people are racist" as hate speech.

But yes, I would say that most of her voters want different priorities in online censorship, not less of it. It will be interesting how she navigates that - "social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor" is vague enough that Voat could put it on their front page as an endorsement (and they just might, if only for the sake of trolling).

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

#77

Post by wvenable »

mirimir wrote: post #53
tracer4201 wrote: post #38

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.

I'm pretty sure "partial monopoly" is an oxymoron.

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

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dgudkov wrote: post #74
mirimir wrote: 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]

>That is, that they've become a monopoly. Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.

> Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement

They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor opinions unfavourable to it disturbing.

There are strong reasons to break up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

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

#79

Post by wvenable »

as300 wrote: post #66
tracer4201 wrote: post #38

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?

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 in…

They own the majority means of discourse and dissemination of information? Newpapers? Television networks? Come on. That's not even close to true.

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

#80

Post by int_19h »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #37
tsycho wrote: post #6

Clever 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.

It's not clever when you consider most people aren't supportive of it. There's definitely a classist kind of fury right now, aimed a little bit at 'big corps' and 'the rich' - but I seriously doubt it extends to such moves. Most people that use Facebook probably like it, pretty much, and don't suffer any visible consequences of their ostensible loss of privacy. Similar for Google. I think a smarter approach would be…

I can assure you that there are many working class people who have a problem with Facebook.

In fact, every time I see a discussion on Facebook and privacy in non-techie FB communities, it's surprising how negative people feel, and how many say that they would stop using it altogether, if they didn't have some connections there they cared about. It's basically lock-in via social graph, and don't think people are stupid enough that they don't notice.

Post reply on HN