Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

Post by nicpottier » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

dcchambers wrote: post #40

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 th…

Post by 20191031 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

Post by chrischen » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:11 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #61

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…

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.

Post by sjwright » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

ben509 wrote: post #116

sjwright wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Fac…

> The question is whether political speech can withstand the age of overwhelming scale, extreme anonymity, weaponised psychology and machine learning. Except no one has proposed banning bots, machine learning, or shutting down anonymous actors. Those are all boogeymen. Any paid ad can be required to be transparent to whatever degree we want to impose on the advertiser. That's why, honestly phrased, this question woul…

Post by riantogo » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #35

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 th…