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

191–200 of 215 posts

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

#191

Post by epanchin »

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.

A better analogy would be a bar owner evicting someone who politely disagreed with them, while simultaneously allowing a fascist group to drink, telling punters who complain about them he just serves drinks and will serve them to anyone who he legally can do.

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

#192

Post by valker43 »

Semaphor wrote: post #184
chicob wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, one could argue that the ad campaign was made in bad faith. Warrens people knew it would be flagged automatically by fb's algorithms because of the logo. No one at Facebook actually decided to pull the ad. And it wouldn't have been, if it weren't for going against ToS. The damage is done. But very insidious tactic still.

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

#193

Post by bovermyer »

aliteralrobot wrote: post #188
chicob wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks for the link. I'd never heard of this being called a "Streisand effect" before.

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

#194

Post by tome »

bovermyer wrote: post #193
aliteralrobot wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks for the link. I'd never heard of this being called a "Streisand effect" before.

Ironically, that's evidence agaist its existence as an effect.

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

#195

Post by bovermyer »

tome wrote: post #194
bovermyer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. I'd never heard of this being called a "Streisand effect" before.

Ironically, that's evidence agaist its existence as an effect.

The phenomenon described is common - making a noticeable effort to hide something draws more attention to what you're trying to hide.

Attributing it to a specific individual seems a little weird to me. It'd be like calling lashing out in anger "the Depp effect."

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

#196

Post by vijaybritto »

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…

What if FB makes sure the ad sees non impressionable audience?

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

#197

Post by phyzome »

bovermyer wrote: post #195
tome wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, that's evidence agaist its existence as an effect.

The phenomenon described is common - making a noticeable effort to hide something draws more attention to what you're trying to hide. Attributing it to a specific individual seems a little weird to me. It'd be like calling lashing out in anger "the Depp effect."

Phenomena get named. Good names are in short supply. Names of individuals are used as an easy cultural shorthand.

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

#198

Post by Skrillex »

pferde wrote: post #172
Barrin92 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Basically. See US vs Alcoa [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

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

#199

Post by ineedasername »

dgregd wrote: post #174
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.

It seems likely that no human decision resulted in this move. Instead, the take down may have been automated due to the used of the FB logo in the ad. If Warren's campaign knew this policy of such removal existed, then the entire setup was just that- a setup. The ad was placed in bad faith, but there was no bad faith self-interest on the part of FB in taking it down, just the appearance of such.

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

#200

Post by mhaymo »

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…

Times Square billboards still sell for thousands of dollars a day. Do you have any evidence for your beliefs?
Post reply on HN