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

151–160 of 215 posts

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

#151

Post by selimthegrim »

alanlamm wrote: post #132

some of the things we have had censored by fb (even after appealing) 1. illustrations of cupid on valentines day, genitals covered, for nudity. 2. illustrations of a (non sexually provocative) mouth when the logo of our product was a mouth. 3. illustrations (not photos) of people of various body types and ethnicities, not sexually provocative, showing skin but no genitals, nipples or buttocks, with flowers and boxes…

At this rate they’d probably censor that song from Chicago (the musical) too if someone posted it.

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

#152

Post by Marsymars »

URSpider94 wrote: post #136

For everyone claiming that Facebook is a monopoly, I have two questions: 1. What do they have a monopoly on? 2. How would Warren’s plan (forcing FB to divest WhatsApp and Instagram) eliminate that monopoly?

I expect that people making the "monopoly" claim are using imprecise language that may vary in precision based on jurisdictional definitions of monopolies, and fb's market share in any given jurisdiction. Laws about monopolies and antitrust exist to prevent or mitigate certain problems that arise when companies have disproportionate power and influence on society. Whether or not fb qualifies as "monopoly", there are many cogent arguments to be made that about its negative effects due to its disproportionate power.

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

#153

Post by cabalamat »

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…

> Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their Company?

Because allowing fb to do so would tend to allow people with power to get more power.

This is bad because concentrations of power will act in their own interest, not the public interest.

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

#154

Post by morningmoon »

int_19h wrote: post #140
morningmoon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read her blog post. I don't see anywhere in her post that gives one concrete example of a negative impact on consumers. She gives the example of Amazon.com forcing diapers.com to sell diapers at a lower price as a reason for why we need to prevent acquisitions. But getting products for cheaper prices benefits consumers... The small business founders got rich and consumers got cheaper diapers. I'm not seeing any pro…

You might find a problem with that arrangement when you need to buy something that Amazon doesn't or won't carry, and there's nobody else in town (because they can't survive on such products alone). Or as a manufacturer who makes a new and better product compared to something that they have, but who can't find a sales channel for it. Or as someone who is unhappy with some of Amazon's practices - say, how they treat t…

You might find a problem with that arrangement when you need to buy something that Amazon doesn't or won't carry, and there's nobody else in town

Why would Amazon not selling something prevent someone else from selling it?

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

#155

Post by dillondoyle »

gatherhunterer wrote: post #58
dillondoyle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a fair point. I assume that they have different rules for the likes of Warren than they have for you. It is feasible, though, that this was caught in an algorithm and Facebook declined to volunteer that fact.

I work almost exclusively for politicians, specifically buying ads online (a lot on FB). It would be a new development to me if there is a tiered/segregated approval for political ads. Perhaps now that you have to sign affidavit, but it feels like the same outsourced process as normal where it's mostly automated process.

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

#156

Post by rjf72 »

There seems to be such a simple solution here that would solve the problems without even needing to breakup companies: require companies offering user generated content for free, to host such content under 'copyleft' licenses, unless users explicitly opt out, and provide simple/API means of access and submission. Copyleft meaning that anybody could freely copy and use the user-generated content from these sites, so long as they themselves also enabled anybody to freely copy and use that content.

Content (and other incentives) from users that are opted in would be treated identically to those that opted out. The opt out option is mainly for sites like YouTube where somebody might rely on the site for income and want to voluntarily allow YouTube to publish their video under a restrictive license.

The idea is simple - get rid of the network effect. When content is provided under copyleft licenses, anybody could effectively create a social media system where users could see messages from e.g. Facebook and also post messages that would be cloned to Facebook, yet not on Facebook.

The possibilities here are endless and it would pose a relatively small regulatory burden on companies. And most important of all - it would actually probably work. The network effect works like gravity. Even if you break something apart, it will sooner or later come together again even if under a different form.

---

The biggest problem I see is a problem that any idea that could work, will never be considered. Big tech is driving big bucks to politicians. As recently as 2012 the FTC's bureau of competition submitted to the commissioners a lengthy analysis that recommended suing Google for conduct that had, and would continue to, cause "real harm to consumers and to innovation." The commissioners, majority Democratic appointees (not a partisan jab, but rather emphasizing that this is an institutional/establishment issue - not a partisan one), chose not to pursue the case. [1]

[1] - https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/reich/article/Break-up-F...

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

#157

Post by dnautics »

liability wrote: post #125
dgudkov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Nothing they receive in their mailbox holds their attention long, the attention market is dominated by digital media. > Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc With headphones in or bluetooth paired. Who the hell reads a billboard? Who pairs their cellphone with their car, or owns headphones? Damn near…

I can name at least three of the snowflake data billboards, I know c3-iot is hiring, and espetus has two billboards (one in San Mateo and one at the 101/80 junction). And I mostly ride the 280, and don't eat that much meat.

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

#158

Post by throwaway12iii »

dahdum wrote: post #128
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'…

It’s very smart, her ad campaign people must have known misusing the Facebook logo would get them denied, but now she gets press for being the victim. You or I couldn’t run those ads, this is special treatment for her.

Lots of other ads have used the facebook logo and not been taken down.

It's pretty funny when people are manipulated so easily by facebook PR.

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

#160

Post by t0astbread »

That's some excellent bait and Facebook fell for it:

1. Put up a tiny anti-FB campaign that's not gonna reach anyone on FB

2. FB bans it because their reviewers have to adhere to the rules set by upper mgmt

3. Now you're the victim -> Backlash for FB

4. FB restores the ad

5. Now you're the victim AND the winner

6. The story spreads amongst anti-FB circles, where it was originally meant to hit, with a massive impact (for little money)

Post reply on HN