Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by tghw » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #68

sjwright wrote: post #42

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…

> Claiming that we must be reliant on private corporations for free speech is a corruption of the very concept I don't disagree with you! And I think if you'll look around, you'll see it is true. Your ability to get your viewpoint out is, perhaps more than at any other time since the 19th century, dependent on it being deemed acceptable by a handful of powerful gatekeepers. Between the incredible amount of consolidat…

First step would be banning political ads on social media platforms. And then everywhere else.

The problem with your initial argument is that paid political ads give even more power to the gatekeepers. It also overlooked the issue that more money equals more speech, meaning grassroots political movements are at an even bigger disadvantage because of the disparity of funds than if everyone had to get their message out organically.

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

#102

Post by sjwright » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #78

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…

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 theor…

You're arguing a point nobody is defending. Obviously it costs money to speak loudly. The question is whether political speech can withstand the age of overwhelming scale, extreme anonymity, weaponised psychology and machine learning.

This is a problem far greater than literally anything that could be broadcast in a radio spot. And for now, the photocopiers and push pollers still exist no matter what happens with Facebook.

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

#103

Post by sk84life » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

frankbreetz wrote: post #87

Lazare wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Twitter bans political ads, I am pretty sure they still plan on making money.

Twitter,Facebook and Google are all same institute to damp down privacy towards full controlled speech if any.

Please, don't use these sandboxes .. Programmers create real social media for people. Make internet great again, please.

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

#104

Post by davinic » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:44 PM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #96

The real problem for me is the way political ads on social media (and on the web in general) can effectively undermine FEC attribution rules. Between direct targeting with ads that run for short periods, and promoted posts of new accounts, there is basically no way for existing regulators to enforce attribution to a PAC or candidate, so outright lies and shady adverts fly under the radar with even less consequences t…

I think this could be solved by disallowing targeted political ads at any micro level. Allow campaigns to target metro areas and very broad demo groups much like TV does.

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

#105

Post by mattnewton » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

davinic wrote: post #104

mattnewton wrote: post #96

The real problem for me is the way political ads on social media (and on the web in general) can effectively undermine FEC attribution rules. Between direct targeting with ads that run for short periods, and promoted posts of new accounts, there is basically no way for existing regulators to enforce attribution to a PAC or candidate, so outright lies and shady adverts fly under the radar with even less consequences t…

I think this could be solved by disallowing targeted political ads at any micro level. Allow campaigns to target metro areas and very broad demo groups much like TV does.

Lots of potential solutions here (and potential implementation problems with enforcement), but afaict nobody is even talking about it, they are argueing over a simple black and white ban.

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

#106

Post by tghw » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #78

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…

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 theor…

No one is saying paid speech is not free speech. Obviously it is.

The flawed argument Zuck made is that in order to have free speech we must have paid speech. That's a self-serving fallacy.

There's a difference between paying for printing costs and paying a middle man to distribute your message to an arbitrary number of people, especially when that middle man has zero accountability and zero marginal cost.

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

#107

Post by pjspycha » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

I don't see a problem with having advertisers require to have references or sources to any quotes or facts they represent. The sources would have to be credible and shown in context (no sound bites) and perhaps view-able by the users easily. Facebook or a third-party should be required to make sure the sources look credible and all reported facts or quotes have sources attached. Such a system would put most of the leg work on the advertisers and make the process easier to administer.

I have no idea if Facebook already does any of this, but from their policy about fact checking, they do not require any political ads to go through their third party fact-check. Otherwise the third-party fact checker appears to do all the research themselves or they may reach out to the advertisers for more information.

https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722?ref=...

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

#108

Post by bhupy » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

Traster wrote: post #98

bhupy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theor…

We're talking here about free speech versus compelled speech. There are no restrictions on your right to speech, but we also don't compel anyone to sell you an advertising platform. Anyone is free to choose to sell you a megaphone or not. In this case Zuck gets criticism for choosing to sell megaphones to people he knows are going to use those megaphones to lie. The case Zuck wants to make is that he should be free f…

I think you might be confusing the First Amendment with the principle of Free Speech.

Per the First Amendment, Zuck can do whatever he likes with his platform. He can refuse to broadcast whatever he wants, just like CNN and other news networks. But just as important, he is free to NOT refuse to broadcast whatever he pleases. There are no legal consequences for that (outside of the narrow exceptions in Brandenburg v Ohio).

The argument that he is making is that he wants Facebook to be a platform that upholds the ideal of free speech. Whether or not Facebook follows through and actually practices this philosophy equally, remains to be seen.

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

#109

Post by sjwright » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

missosoup wrote: post #88

sjwright wrote: post #42

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…

Claiming that one can meaningfully express free speech without relying on corporations is delusion. If you aren't wielding the megaphone that is twitter/fb/youtube/whatever, then you are not going to be heard. That's just a fact at this point. Social media has in fact lowered the barrier to entry for expressing speech to large audiences, because before social media there were only newspapers and TV networks that cost…

I'm not ignoring facts; I agree we're probably never going to get away from a society where the "real" free speech is a privilege of the wealthy. I only seek to remind us of the principles which run deeper than the specific challenges of this moment.

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

#110

Post by ls612 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #38

wan23 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And a system with restrictions like you want favors the authoritarians, those with the best real world bullying/harassment operations, and those who are well connected.

I’m sorry but liberal democracy isn’t the best form of government because the people are smart (they never have been), it’s the best form of government because the alternative is recurring political violence.