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

141–150 of 371 posts

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

#141

Post by WhompingWindows »

haolez wrote: post #49

I think Zuck's statement makes more sense than Jack's, where Jack said that "democracy might break if we allow those ads" (not with these exact words). It's weird to see a CEO making a statement like that, like if it was his role to protect democracy. I think Zuck sounded more professional and centered in this case.

How is it NOT his role to protect democracy? Democracy thrives on freedom of information, and with an informed populace. If the democracy's populace is gaining massive quantities of information from Twitter, isn't Jack Dorsey then directly involved in being an arbiter of democracy? For better or worse, isn't it factually true that these tech-info companies are directly woven into the fabric of our democracy?

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

#142

Post by tw04 »

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…

If the media isn't covering their message because they're LYING, then the media is doing their job. The fact Zuckerberg thinks that people who are intentionally misleading people "deserve a voice" is ridiculous. These aren't little white lies, or a bending of the truth, they're bald-faced lies intended to confuse or misinform the voting public. I'm not sure why we're pretending they deserve the same platform as people spreading factual information.

They're more than free to say whatever they want on their own property and in their own homes. But if they want a seat at the media, then at minimum there needs to be a GIANT disclaimer both before and after the advertisement both calling out the false assertions and letting people know the advertisement is strictly for entertainment purposes.

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

#144

Post by tathougies »

Why is his policy so diffficult for people to swallow? He has made a standard rule without room for arbitrary censorship and everyone is upset. If you can pay, you can publish on Facebook. This is a good thing. Fairness is important when it comes to monopolies offering services.

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

#145

Post by ff317 »

mrgreenfur wrote: post #75
WhompingWindows wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah but there's still a point to be made here. Maybe the amount is closer to $10/month instead of $3/year, which is still pretty cheap considering the social utility and "entertainment" hours people are getting out of the service.

Also, maybe the costs of running facebook's infrastructure and code drop (and employee headcount, etc) off dramatically if they take an axe to all the parts of it that are devoted to advertising and user data tracking/sales and just focus on the useful core tech bits, which also helps increase the profit margin on the new income model. It's possible there's a rational price that the masses would pay that would still turn them a profit under this kind of setup.

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

#147

Post by qroshan »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #136
cj wrote: post #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…

Why can't FB charge a minimal subscription fee? For 2-3 bucks a year, wouldn't they keep the vast majority of users and simultaneously remove their dependence on shadowy advertisement dollars?

ha ha, classic arm-chair expert who has run ZERO business in their lives.

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

#148

Post by snarf21 »

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 Facebook is evil but it isn't like TV and radio advertising is held to some high level of fact checking or truth. The one minor thing FB might be able to do is to target smaller groups better than tv channels or radio stations.

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

#149

Post by tathougies »

gorgoiler wrote: post #26
mc32 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should be only left with live face to face stump speeches?

It is possible for the state to ensure that political parties get media airtime without having to buy ads. Canada, Ireland, and the UK all do this with Party Political Broadcasts : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast

No thabks. individuals need to have the right to be able to pay the standard publishing fare to publish their voices. That right shouldnt be reserved solely for state sanctioned political parties. That's a sad sad state of affairs.

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

#150

Post by vonmoltke »

walls wrote: post #143
s3r3nity wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What counts as a political ad, in a world where many would claim "everything is political?"

Simple, is the ad for a product or not?

So, the Humane Society or Susan G. Komen Foundation soliciting donations for charitable work is a political ad?
Post reply on HN