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

111–120 of 215 posts

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

#111

Post by rorykoehler »

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.

I just read the App Annie 2019 app report this morning, and the 3 most used apps in Singapore in 2018 were Whatsapp, Instagram and Facebook. Though I didn't check for US stats I'm sure they are similar. That is effectively a monopoly.

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

#112

Post by Swenrekcah »

chrisseaton wrote: post #69
acdha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but all of these small-business/relatable analogies break down because fb is a monopoly. It would be unreasonable if a polite disagreement with one person excluded you from 90% of bars in your state/country.

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

#113

Post by jerf »

crowdpleaser wrote: post #103
potatofarmer45 wrote: post #87

This is smart politics. Rather than simply telling people FB is a monopoly, she runs a limited experiment that had it been left alone, would have limited effect since the budget was so small ($100). Now this puts FB in a bind. If they really are a middleman for content, then these ads don't violate any laws and shouldn't be blocked. However, FB as a company with a product should block it just like coffee shop wouldn'…

Does Facebook claim to be a content-agnostic middleman? I know we accuse them of it, but they pulled some GOP / Trump ads for being sensational, that hardly sounds like a dispassionate middleman.

It's not about what they claim to be, it's about the legal provisions that may or may not protect them. I'm not sure of all the details, which wouldn't fit in an HN post anyhow, but the short version is that if they are picking and choosing what can appear on their platform, they're also liable for it. Facebook, among other companies, want to both be able to pick and choose what appears on their platform and to enjoy the legal protections that come from not picking and choosing, but the days of that arrangement working for them are clearly numbered. And in the case of Facebook, they're clearly going to go for choosing what can appear on their platform, so it's only a matter of time before they get sued about it.

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

#114

Post by null000 »

morningmoon wrote: post #28

Breakup 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.

Market concentration causes huge problems - outsized lobbying power, increased wealth concentration, potential for judicial abuse, unbalanced power dynamics (e.g. between youtube and it's content creators, or Amazon and its sellers) and so on.

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

#115

Post by mirimir »

chillacy wrote: post #97
mirimir wrote: 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. 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.

Snapchat? TikTok? Discord? Reddit? Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.

Sure, they have competitors. But there are no close equivalents with substantial market power.

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

#116

Post by kelnos »

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…

I think it's a intellectually dishonest to try draw a parallel between a local store that has a reach of hundreds (maybe thousands), and a platform that reaches and influences the world-changing (or at least country-changing) decisions of over a billion people.

From a strict business perspective, of course you're right: an independent business that offers a subscription product should be allowed to terminate ongoing uses of that product that it doesn't like.

But from a social and political perspective, FB censoring ads like this makes them look very, very bad, and basically proves the point that they have way too much control over what news and information reaches a troublingly-large number of people.

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

#117

Post by dymk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #86
dymk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees. They all hook into the same ad backend anyways.

> Dissecting the company along those lines does nothing to curb their cumulative potential effect on controlling what ads a user sees If I can reach my audience through Facebook or Instagram, that’s more competition than Facebook properties alone. > They all hook into the same ad backend anyways Hence the call to break them up.

How in the world is that enforceable, or legal?

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

#118

Post by killjoywashere »

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…

It's different because Facebook isn't selling coffee, they're selling a "community platform" and publicly insist they support free speech. Warren is demonstrating not "this is a terrible coffee, contrary to the company's claims" but "this is a terrible platform for freedom of speech, contrary to the company's claims".

IF you believe representative democracy, though perhaps fatally flawed, is the best system of government we as humans can muster THEN demonstrating the forum for debate is flawed is more essential than roads and water.

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

#119

Post by dgudkov »

liability wrote: post #102
dgudkov wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. Political advertisement successfully worked long before internet existed yet alone Facebook. Voters still live in houses, walk on streets, drive cars on roads, use public transit, watch TV/Netflix/YT/whatever. There are still many ways to reach them. Even if other channels are more expensive it doesn't make Facebook a monopolist.

People no longer receive daily, or even weekly, deliveries of newspapers. They no longer crowd around the living room radio, and increasingly avoid the television, which increasingly has neither a cable connection nor rabbit ears. Like it or not, the world has changed.

The world has changed, but not that much. People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc. The real life still here, far not everything has moved online. And even for that online part Facebook is not a monopoly.

Influential online company? Absolutely. Monopoly? No.

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

#120

Post by dgudkov »

rorykoehler wrote: post #111
dgudkov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I just read the App Annie 2019 app report this morning, and the 3 most used apps in Singapore in 2018 were Whatsapp, Instagram and Facebook. Though I didn't check for US stats I'm sure they are similar. That is effectively a monopoly.

>That is effectively a monopoly.

Monopoly on what exactly?

Post reply on HN