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

201–210 of 215 posts

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

#201

Post by cmsonger »

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?

For the same reason that TV stations should have to run ads for candidates that advocate for greater taxes on TV stations.

Facebook operates in a stable environment created by the US' democratic governmental structure. In their role as communication channel, they have an obligation to preserve the process that created the environment in which they arose.

I work in tech and while I might quibble with the wording, there's not one point that I feel is wrong on substance. They have bulldozed competition. They have profited from private information. They have tilted the playing field in their favor.

Ironically, I would have thought this last point was the most arguable. Then Facebook took down her ad. ... Sigh. FB so predictably short sighted sometimes.

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

#202

Post by paradoja »

stingraycharles wrote: post #168
throwaway12iii wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe only the ones they had an easy excuse to remove?

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

#203

Post by Grue3 »

dmix wrote: post #14
gatherhunterer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terms of service suggest that any ad that discusses Facebook is ripe for removal. Her point stands and is expanded by the selective enforcement of their ToS; is this the platform for public discourse that we want for ourselves and do we want any such platform to be this powerful?

I thought Warren’s demographic loves having top down moderation-heavy social networks?

Only when they moderate people they don't like.

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

#204

Post by moate »

wvenable wrote: post #79
as300 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their monopoly is on discourse and dissemination of information. I'm going to sound a bit paternalistic and anti-capitalist here, because I am. Facebook is no longer just a company, it's an institution that should definitely be regulated. It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. There was plenty of fake information on facebook around the 2016 election that in…

They own the majority means of discourse and dissemination of information? Newpapers? Television networks? Come on. That's not even close to true.

Newspapers and Television networks have SUBSTANTIAL government regulation and oversight not present in Social Media. If you want to put Facebook on that level that those media types are competition, you need to accept that Facebook now gets greater FCC oversight.

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

#205

Post by bovermyer »

phyzome wrote: post #197
bovermyer wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but that then adds a communication barrier. There are more universal ways to describe what happened.

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

#206

Post by chicob »

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.

You're right, I misread that.

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

#207

Post by josefresco »

Not sure if this is smart by Senator Warren, or just campaign bluster.

The side of me that thinks it's smart, thinks that by asking for a lot (break up of tech giants) she may be able to notch a win that isn't so aggressive (data privacy regulations) It also "breaks the ice" for the argument for when she brings it up on the campaign, it won't be so shocking.

The side of me that thinks it's dumb, thinks that she's misreading her audience, in that most people could give two shits about privacy, and in fact really like these platforms. She may be overplaying the "progressive" hand, and as a result may be perceived as "too radical" to be elected by purple states.

Regardless, I think her presidential aspirations are doomed. She's a woman, smart, successful, outspoken, Harvard educated, progressive and from "the most liberal" state in the country. All these things are toxic to Republicans.

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

#208

Post by foobiekr »

mk89 wrote: post #166
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.

This is the correct interpretation of the Facebook propaganda response. “The algorithm did it” serves the same purpose, for data-hoarder companies, that “drugs made me do it and I’m going to rehab” serves for celebrities.

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

#209

Post by schoen »

Y_Y wrote: post #164
schoen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I guess I could try escaping the period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod...

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

#210

Post by will_brown »

wvenable wrote: post #90
will_brown wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those other things you list...newspapers, television, networks...they all have a Facebook page and distribute their content through FB. These traditional forms of media are scrambling for likes/comments just as much as the next influencer.

No business would fail if it didn't have a Facebook page. It's not necessary. Now compare that with Google -- most businesses need to be listed on Google or they will lose significant amount of business. Facebook is nothing by comparison. Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly.

>Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly.

No and you don’t need to be a monopoly to violate antitrust laws and engage in anti competitive behavior.

Post reply on HN