Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

Post by v4dok » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #48

Angostura wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I humbly disagree > it would be natural for them to try paying for ads, and the obvious place to put ads are on social media It would be natural to them to post to their Facebook page because that's what social media is for and then for their committed network of supporters to repost etc. Remember - that's the advantage of social media - you can quickly get the work out to your supporters without having to go through…

That's not how social media works. Feeds are highly curated. > you can quickly get the work out to your supporters without having to go through intermediaries, or having to pay for advertising. How do you think Facebook makes money? And as a followup, why do you think people pay money to run ads on Facebook? Like, I 100% agree with you that this is how it should work, and it's how we all thought it would work 15 year…

Post by chrischen » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

freddie_mercury wrote: post #21

chrischen wrote: post #5

> "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," he added. Another tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful to give them more of a voice than the average person, is another way to look at it. Facebook are profiting from both sides. They’re a news site that’s simultaneously FOX News and MSNBC al…

But a private company should enforce all the other things that Facebook has no problem moderating? Facebook has already said they have no problem enforcing this for non-politicians, after all.

Post by yifanl » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:20 PM UTC

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.

Post by Lazare » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:21 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #42

Lazare wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Claiming that we must be reliant on private corporations for free speech is a corruption of the very concept. I don't agree with your argument, but to the extent that there's any truth to it the remedy can only be to fix the underlying problem—not submitting to it. To be clear, my objection isn't to all online advertising but specifically to Zuckerberg defending Facebook's policy with an appeal to free speech. Obviou…

Post by v4dok » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC