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

181–190 of 215 posts

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

#181

Post by lallysingh »

chicob wrote: post #170
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…

For Google, it would've been easy. Rank some other Warren-related site above her antitrust page. If they can't find one, have someone make one.

For $100, they should've left it alone.

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

#182

Post by michaelt »

chr1 wrote: post #169

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.

Tech companies haven't moved from San Francisco to Sacramento, in the face of multi-million-dollar house prices in the Bay Area.

I find it hard to believe they're incapable of that, yet capable of what you propose :)

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

#183

Post by crottypeter »

wvenable wrote: post #144
as300 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of the population can write for a newspaper or appear on TV? When I say dissemination, I'm not just talking about elites. If the average Joe wanted to reach out asany people as they know and tell them something, tell me how they should do it?

You're doing a fine job right here. But Twitter seems to be a far better option than Facebook for that kind of scenario.

Average Joe has a facebook account with a network of friends. They do not have a twitter account let alone any followers (Facebook DAU: 1.5 billion; Twitter DAU: 126 million)

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

#184

Post by Semaphor »

chicob wrote: post #170
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…

> But I don't think this is an overreaction

The overreaction was on facebook's part.

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

#185

Post by acdha »

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.

Unreasonable in the sense that even if it’s legal, ejecting someone who wasn’t causing problems is likely to strike many people as overbearing even if they share the owner’s politics. Facebook being arbitrary hurts them because everyone else has to wonder whether something they care about will be next.

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

#186

Post by pimmen »

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…

Nobody is calling Facebook immoral for taking down the ad. However, this is a string argument against Facebook being a neutral platform who just want to connect people and should be left alone from regulation.

They're a nigh monopoly and what happened reinforced that point. Thus, they can't claim they shouldn't be treated and regulated as a monopoly with a straight face.

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

#187

Post by pimmen »

URSpider94 wrote: post #135
hyperpallium wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "store" was a newspaper, and it refused to report parliamentary debate on its impartiality... It's not illegal, but does prove its partiality.

This is a paid advertisement. More like if a newspaper refused to run an ad encouraging you to boycott the newspaper. Which they probably would. A good newspaper would then report on the refusal to run the ad, and the recriminations that followed.

But not if they were the only newspaper, or the newspaper with more than half of the market, because that would make it look like a monopoly abusing its power.

In Europe, public service broadcasters (like the BBC) have no problem giving time to politicians or others who call for the dismantling of public service. If they didn't that would look really bad.

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

#188

Post by aliteralrobot »

chicob wrote: post #170
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…

> a forced Streisand

For those who didn’t catch the reference, this is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

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

#189

Post by nindalf »

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.

> Lots of other ads have used the facebook logo

Care to give a single example?

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

#190

Post by nindalf »

i_have_to_speak wrote: post #171
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.

Have you ever paid $100 per impression on an ad campaign? You're mistaken anyway. $100 was the total budget, not per impression.
Post reply on HN