Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

thehill.com

71–80 of 371 posts

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

#71

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" as in "from prior restraint by the government". It's not a coherent comment in the context of the US 1st amendment.

Free speech, as a value, is a broader concept than mere lack of government restraint on speech. It can also pertain to the exchange of ideas in certain private forums.

And by the way, the First Amendment disallows not only prior restraint, but many other government restraints on speech as well. It's just that prior restraint is considered the most egregious and hence subject to the greatest judicial scrutiny.

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

#72

We could solve this with just a few simple requirements for online political advertising. Here's some I came up with in the past few minutes—rough ideas but let's see how they play out. • Require all advertisements to be published N days in advance on a public noticeboard with full details of every aspect of the advertisement—audience, budget, funding entity. • Do not allow targeting in any political advertising othe…

the second point still gives too much power to facebook

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

#73
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 th…

I've also found that my kids' school sometimes _only_ sends out notifications or surveys via Facebook, even though they have two other specific systems they pay for that are specifically made for parent/school communications.

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

#74
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from, but this is muddled. "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one" has been a cliche for a long, long time, and while it is a little flip, there's a truth there. Your freedom of speech does not require me or anyone else to amplify it. Or even listen. Put another way, do you believe you should be forced to tell other people my message? What about everyone else's…

What I will say is that both extremes are unworkable—from blanket bans to the authoritarian forcing of companies to publish poltical ads against their will.

Everything was fine back when the newspapers had a healthy tension between revenues and credibility. And when the sheer quantity of advertising venues was small and the advertisements devoid of third-order ulterior motives.

Until we can reign in the excesses of online advertising, it's more prudent to be cautious than dive further into the abyss.

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

#75

> "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…

Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc. I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their network/contacts that FB provides.

That is against the business model of building a ubiquitous profile on every one and selling that for ad targeting. This way he can sell each person over and over instead of making a measly $3.

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

#76
post #2

We simultaneously fear the power of Facebook but then demand they become the final arbiter of the truth, censoring even the speech of our political leaders. Why did we think this was a good idea again? Ask China their opinion on the value of being the one to decide what is true.

You're acting as if we can't do anything about power of Facebook. It's absurd to to conflate making Facebook take editorial control of their platform with making it the state censor of an authoritarian country.

Regulating and/or breaking up Facebook is hardly "demanding they become the final arbiter of truth." The goal here is reducing Mark Zuckerberg to the point where his personal judgement is irrelevant.

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

#77
Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on Facebook?

The main issue I have with this is how Facebook strategically blends advertisements (which is often political during election cycles) together with organic non-sponsored content.

Anecdote: My 84 year old grandmother spends 1-2 hours per day scrolling through Facebook's news feed. When I watch her do it, she pays ZERO attention to why she's seeing a specific piece of content (to her, there's no difference between a post that's labeled "Sponsored" versus an organic post from a family member). In other words, for my grandmother, Facebook has not done an effective job at informing her when she's viewing a paid advertisement vs. organic non-sponsored content. This is a clear form of user manipulation that needs to stop.

Even when I scroll through Facebook, I often don't notice the "Sponsored" label on posts until after I've already read most of the post.

To me, the primary issue is that Facebook does not adequately differentiate organic content from sponsored content.

At least when watching television, it's absolutely clear when you're watching paid-for commercials - it's harder to manipulate someone's beliefs when they know they're watching a commercial. But with Facebook, a huge percentage of users don't know when they're interacting with an advertisement vs. organic content - this is the problem that I think needs solving.

> Zuck: "Instead, I believe the better approach is to work to increase transparency. Ads on Facebook are already more transparent than anywhere else."

In what way is Facebook transparent? Do they mean they simply disclose political ad spend? Or do they legitimately think they're doing a good job at properly labeling paid-for content?

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

#78
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…

How is paid speech not free speech? The paid aspect is just a means to an end. Money itself should not be seen as speech, but speech that costs money is still speech. On a basic level, any self publishing on any form of media has a nonzero cost and you buy some service from some third party eventually. If free speech applied to you but not the person who supplied you a platform, then that freedom only exists in theory and is effectively useless as you can be gagged by way of action against who supplied you your megaphone.

The freedom of advocacy is inseparable from the freedom of speech. It costs money to print pamphlets, buy air time, pay people to stand on the corner, conduct opinion polls, etc.

Say that you or I have a novel political idea that we want to advocate for. How do you propose that we do so? We'd probably form a non-profit, spend money contacting potential allies, convince them on the merits of our case and to donate to us, then spend that money on pamphlets, TV, radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work.

If paid advertisements are not free speech, then the concept of free speech would cease to exist beyond street corner rants.

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

#79
Facebook could provide a quota of free advertising to political parties, and not allow them to buy any more outside their quota. This would be akin to government provided airtime (“Party Political Broadcasts”) as done in Canada, UK and Ireland.

I’ve always felt nervous about the role of money in politics and removing the requirement for massive ad-spend budgets might bring us closer to a more moral democracy, and away from pay-to-play.

Post reply on HN