Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by Dahoon » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 7:51 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #129

saghm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the point of breaking those into separate companies be to _prevent_ them from hooking into the same backend?

What if they break FB, IG, Messenger and WhatsApp in to separate companies. They also spin out Facebook Ad Solutions Inc. or whatever it’s called to sell ads to all those separate companies along with anyone else who wants to display FB ads. This isn’t to say that this is what will happen, but it’s one potential.

If they are broken up like this Google could sell ads to be shown on those platforms too.

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

#162

Post by Dahoon » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

dgudkov wrote: post #119

liability wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With that reasoning an old paper yellow pages means no one can have a monopoly on digital yellow pages or a horse and cart means no one can have a monopoly in the car business.

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

#163

Post by loceng » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:09 AM UTC

t0astbread wrote: post #160

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 (…

Whether they planned for this outcome or not, I think it has merit to highlight whether you're able to criticize Facebook on Facebook, and whether using the Facebook logo int his case - associated directly with criticism/a review of Facebook should be considered fair use; and not just for someone in the political light but for average Janes and Joes, who has someone else in this thread pointed out most everyone couldn't get away with or have the rules 'bent' for them.

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

#164

Post by Y_Y » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:13 AM UTC

schoen wrote: post #124

jerf wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. You might be thinking of the pre-CDA rule suggested by the Stratton Oakmont case. But Congress specifically removed that rule! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod... . https://en.wikipedia.org/…

Your link to

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.

seems to not format properly, because presumably hn strips the last '.' thinking it's a full stop to end a sentence. Boo.

Also for those wondering where they know the name from, that is indeed Jordan "Wolf of Wall Street" Belfort's company.

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

#165

Post by stale2002 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:15 AM UTC

cronix wrote: post #108

almost_usual wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would suggest Facebook supports censorship

Yeah, they probably censor child porn, and other things, too. Don't you support censorship?

If Facebook wants to lose it's safe harbor protections, then yes, it has the legal right to censor content.

I doubt that Facebook wants to lose those protections though.

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

#166

Post by mk89 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:16 AM UTC

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'…

.. Or simply Facebook will blame it on algorithms that are complex, not trained etc...

We have seen every possible experiment, there is always an excuse. They even had excuses for Cambridge Analytics.The best thing to do is just delete your account and that's it.

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

#167

Post by chj » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC

All those people laughing at her proposal, they have no clue that this lady understands tech perfectly well, and sees the problem of centralization in tech industry more clearly. In an interview at SXSW, she addressed to the people working for Big Tech companies, and said that break up will actually make their work more interesting. This is really not some ordinary politician.

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

#168

Post by stingraycharles » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:24 AM UTC

throwaway12iii wrote: post #158

dahdum wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article says that more than a dozen other of her ads were not taken down. So it is not like they were _all_ taken down, just a single one that carrier the logo.

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

#169

Post by chr1 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

Would US be able to breakup non-US tech companies, and if no how would it prevent tech companies from moving outside the US? Some of them have enough money to buy a small country or build a huge seasteading city.

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

#170

Post by chicob » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 8:51 AM UTC

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'…

I agree this is smart, because it's a win-win for Warren: either the ad remains online and it does its work, or it gets taken down and that's a forced Streisand.

But I don't think this is an overreaction, specially because this isn't solely about Facebook: if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal.

Antitrust issues have been risen when Amazon promoted some products over others.

The main questions, at least for me, are: what kind of action is acceptable for these companies? Have they grown beyond their own governance?

And this applies to other companies as well. If Twitter were to shut down the POTUS account for violating TOU, people would also wonder the state of limbo of some platforms: should everyone be treated in equal terms? Does it bear some responsibility as an intermediary for public officials? Should it be subject to some standard verification protocol other than the one put in place by its engineers?

It also raises questions for the user cases: should governments and public officials use social media indiscriminately? Traditional media has a certain democratic access to government: should governments give a specific social media platform preferential treatment? Should there be a call for bids when choosing a social media platform over others?