Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 371 posts

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#31

Post by fennecfoxen »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #13
Traster wrote: post #4

>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…

"Mr. Paine! I submit that your pamphlet, _Common Sense_, is not free speech! If it was part of your free speech, surely your printers must print my pamphlets despite the fact that I have no money to pay for them." — some colonial judge in the service of the Crown, probably

Postscript:

Hey, if you liked this one, but need a more recent example, you should try getting together with a bunch of people, setting up a little not-for-profit organization[1], soliciting donations, and using that money to make a documentary about your political opponents, decrying them as unfit for public office -- then get in a court case with the FEC telling you that you can't show the movie, because there's going to be an election.

[1] Not a 501(c)(3) charity, mind you; donations aren't tax-deductible. Just a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#32

Post by bluetidepro »

samatman wrote: post #6

Facebook, the platform, is in trouble. It doesn't matter what the outcome is of the 2020 election season, or what Facebook does during it. They will be blamed for it. Buying Instagram and Whatsapp was farsighted, Facebook the company can cruise for awhile on those properties. The main site is bound to fall out of fashion, and soon. Can't be soon enough for my taste.

> The main site is bound to fall out of fashion, and soon.

Uhhh, that already happened many years ago. Talk to anyone under 30, and Facebook is VERY out of style/out-of-date. They will most likely laugh at you or think you're being ironic if you were to bring up "hanging out on Facebook" or anything like that.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#34

Post by jonlucc »

NullPrefix wrote: post #19

I wonder if it is okay to run ads about Zuck's presidential campaign. I know that he is not running, but still, somebody can put ads about it.

Only if you're a currently serving politician or a candidate. Also, only as long as Facebook believes that your candidacy is for the right reasons, else they'll still apply the rules to you.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#35

Post by Lazare »

Traster wrote: post #4

>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…

I notice you don't address his actual point though.

If, let's say, a group advocating for the abolishment of asset forfeiture wants to communicate their message, and the media is not covering it, it would be natural for them to try paying for ads, and the obvious place to put ads are on social media, since that's where the eyeballs are (cf, the collapse of the news media). If social media bans those ads then while the group clearly still has free speech, they will have little way to meaningfully exercise it.

You might say - and I'd certainly agree - that the real problem is a world where everyone is on Twitter and Facebook to the exclusion of all else, and thus a world where 3-4 CEOs can unilaterally decide that nobody needs to hear anything about asset forfeiture (or whatever). And yet, that's the world we're in.

(You also don't seem to understand what "free speech" is. By your logic, a law banning the purchase television ads for Democratic candidates - but allowing the purchase of television ads for Republicans - would be okay, because after all, those ads cost money, so it's not restricting the Democratic candidates right to free speech. That's absurd, no?)

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#36

Post by maxerickson »

Derek_MK wrote: post #12
philliphaydon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a troll comment or are you being serious?

Neither really, it's demonstrating that it's kind of dumb to consider a paid advertisement "speech" for the purposes of "free speech", considering there's inherently a restriction there on how much "speech" you get, because you have to pay for the ability to "speak".

"Free" as in "from prior restraint by the government".

It's not a coherent comment in the context of the US 1st amendment.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#37

Post by krsdcbl »

Traster wrote: post #4

>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…

I think the comparison is lacking, but you do have a point.

It is really more than awkward to use "free speech" to advocate for something that is, inherently, not free.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#38

Post by sjwright »

wan23 wrote: post #24
Derek_MK wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither really, it's demonstrating that it's kind of dumb to consider a paid advertisement "speech" for the purposes of "free speech", considering there's inherently a restriction there on how much "speech" you get, because you have to pay for the ability to "speak".

Free speech isn't free in the same way that free beer is. The idea is to avoid restricting what messages are allowed as much as possible. It's not about giving any particular individual a platform so much as making sure that the platform is open to a variety of ideas.

A system without restrictions favours the rich, it favours the dishonest, and it favours those who wield the best weaponized psychology. (And it favours most those with all three.) Your passing reference to platforms being open to a "variety of ideas" is—and I'm sorry in advance for the snark—but it's just adorable.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#39

Post by sp332 »

On Twitter it's at least possible for candidates or organizations to have a huge reach without paying money. On Facebook, they limit your reach so that even people who explicitly follow your page don't see your updates in their timeline unless you pay up.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#40

Post by dcchambers »

samatman wrote: post #6

Facebook, the platform, is in trouble. It doesn't matter what the outcome is of the 2020 election season, or what Facebook does during it. They will be blamed for it. Buying Instagram and Whatsapp was farsighted, Facebook the company can cruise for awhile on those properties. The main site is bound to fall out of fashion, and soon. Can't be soon enough for my taste.

Sadly many groups I am a part of have moved to facebook and have no interest in moving off of the platform.

To be honest I think it's pretty terrible as a group platform. No proper discussion threads and it's hard to find stuff. But people don't have to pay to host a website/forum and there's virtually no barrier to join since most people have an account on facebook.com.

The only reason I still use facebook is for these groups.

Post reply on HN