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

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

#211

Post by 3xblah » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 7:57 PM 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'…

What is a "neutral platform"?

Are there any examples of such "neutral platforms" outside of web company marketing?

Was this term coined by web companies?

Seems to me like a more concrete term to describe a web company such as Facebook is "MITM". This has a specific meaning and we can all understand how it applies. A MITM could be benevolent, malicious or perhaps "neutral". (The existence of the later might be obviated by peer-to-peer connections.)

If there could be such a thing as a "neutral platform", then maybe "the internet" is the best candidate. Not any particular MITM, whether benevolent, malicious or "neutral".

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

#212

Post by movedx » Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

as300 wrote: post #68

movedx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I think this is a valid point, but it depends on the community the store is in and what it's selling. What if it's in a town that just had a school shooting and is selling fully automatic rifles? The store owner do…

I honestly don't think you should even be taking this comparison seriously at all. It'll just open up this side of the argument to straw man attacks. One is a store that sells things to customers, another is a company that has productized at-least 1/7 of the Earth's population...

Both are doing something that should raise questions, within their own minds, as to whether they're benefiting society, especially after public outcry.

It doesn't matter what the store is: people should always be questioning themselves and their actions and deciding if they're for the good of all.

That's all I'm trying to say.

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

#213

Post by edmundsauto » Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

faceplanted wrote: post #179

edmundsauto wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is facebook preventing you from using a different social network (another library)?

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

#214

Post by marklyon » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

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…

> if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal.

Would it? A number of Republican candidates note that their email goes straight to spam in Gmail, while messages from Democratic candidates do not, even without any obvious difference in delivery efforts by the sender. Nobody cares.

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

#215

Post by faceplanted » Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

edmundsauto wrote: post #213

faceplanted wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is facebook preventing you from using a different social network (another library)?

The reason I used the library analogy is that at least where I live, library's are only run by the state.

And literally the whole point of this conversation is that Facebook has a monopoly on locally targeted online marketing, they're not stopping you from advertising on Myspace, what's stopping you from advertising on Myspace is that it's pointless.

Sure, technically Facebook doesn't have a 100% perfect, totally clean monopoly with literally no competitors, but that doesn't mean that them owning a significant majority of the targeted local advertising market isn't a monopoly problem and shouldn't therefor be legislated against.