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

171–180 of 215 posts

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

#171

Post by i_have_to_speak »

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'…

> the budget was so small ($100)

Really? The article says: "The ads were limited in size and reach, with each costing under $100, according to disclosure details listed online." Each ad was "under $100," and there are no details as to the exact extent of reach. The total spend could have easily been a few hundred grand.

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

#172

Post by pferde »

Barrin92 wrote: post #41
sdinsn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is impossible to reach a meaningful chunk of the public today without going through Facebook One could argue that the point of advertising is not to reach a meaningful chunk of the public, instead a meaningful chunk of a specific demographic.

If that's the case Facebook's position is even more dominant, because of their unique strength at giving advertisers the possibility to target specific demographics.

So the lesson is, don't you dare to be too good and too successful in what you do, otherwise we will do our best to have regulations drop on you like a bag of bricks.

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

#174

Post by dgregd »

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 would say this is ordinary politics, an obvious calculated provocation we see every day.

What is surprising is a such dump FB reaction. Why such inteligent people make such dump moves? Are they really that arogant? Maybe that arrogance is caused by revenue increases after all these scandals. Maybe they treated politicians in the same way for many times, but in other countries.

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

#176

Post by baddox »

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.

This is probably the biggest myth about US antitrust law. It seems to be almost universally believed, but is very clearly false. See, for instance, what happened to Alcoa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

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

#177

Post by buboard »

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?

This is surely not the first time someone posted an ad hating facebook, but they do take down all ads that use facebook's name and logos. This makes sense and it's totally normal (and probably automated), though her campaign team probably planned to use the takedown for political gain. By allowing this one, Facebook is doubling down on her game, i would say it is smart move on their part.

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

#178

Post by faceplanted »

dgudkov wrote: post #92
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reaso…

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 aren't saying that you can't do any marketing without Facebook, but if Facebook is letting others use their targeted advertising and not you, they've just increased your advertising costs by thousands of percent, giving Facebook the ability to selectively grant massive advantages to specific groups.

That's the problem here, yes, there are still mail based catalogue companies, but if you're not online, you're at a massive disadvantage.

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

#179

Post by faceplanted »

edmundsauto wrote: post #150
Swenrekcah wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more like getting kicked out of the most popular bar, where 90% of your friends go. Sure, there are other bars, but you want to go to the one with your friends.

I'd say it's more like getting kicked out of a library for being a republican and therefore not being allowed to ever enter any library in the country again.
Post reply on HN