101–110 of 1001 posts
We don't let blatantly false ads run on TV. Why is it so hard for Facebook or Twitter to do the same thing?
If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down?
I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficult to determine. Even when truth is easy to determine, there are few arbiters of information that everyone alongside the aisle trust. As a result, no matter how easy or difficult truth is to find, without trust no one will believe the truth even if they hear it clearly.
I find political speech pervasive, and believe that almost everything a person says or does has some political element. Determining the periphery of political speech,as a result, would be inherently political.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! Just gonna put it all inline here: Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO 1:05 PM · Oct 30, 2019 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1189634360472829952.html -------------------------------------------------------- We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reaso…
>While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, It's kind of horrifying that one can make such a statement, acknowledging the dangers of advertising, but still insinuating that commercial advertising somehow isn't dangerous and harmful, just the political ads...
And precisely for that reason, it is dangerous ;)
I disagree with this ruling.
They need to ban the fake ads and memes, not 'Vote for Joe Schwartz for City Alderman'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does that mean some group like the American Cancer Society can't advertise?
Sounds like the American Cancer Society can advocate for itself but not for candidates or policies. Fine: Donate to fight cancer Not fine: Donate to Candidate X to support cancer research
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A post from the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21380985 A user who works in digital advertising said they do the following: > You don't take money from clients who are representing/selling anything other than goods or services. You evaluate creative & landing pages for each and every campaign. It's extremely simple. Seems like a mostly good solution. I guess you could still sell political services an…
So does that mean some group like the American Cancer Society can't advertise?
Ultimately, every position you can possibly advocate - including the position that you want people to purchase something or donate to someone - has packaged with it some vision of how society might best operate. In other words: in a society where decisions are made in a political way (which is a good thing), every message is political. Every message.
The real question is how long it will take for Facebook to follow suit.
Who says they will? They just gained market share and more ad dollars.
(calculated from https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2019/05/why-facebook-con...)
So not a lot, but still it's 1%
FINALLY. Now how hard was that??