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

#191

Post by sitkack » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

brownkonas wrote: post #180

More broadly, Congress has failed to act with respect to campaign finance reform. Twitter's response gives me (some) hope that there could be a grass roots, free market reform of sorts. Fundraising becomes slightly less important if you can't spend the money online. Not sure of the overall effect, as TV providers are unlikely to turn away the lucrative ad spend.

The humans need to come to terms with how we communicate facts and opinions. This started in the modern age with Bernays [1] in 1928.

I'd like to have an ISO9001 traceable, encrypted log of all the ads shown to me. Every pixel that was placed on a screen meant to change my mind. And it should be traceable all the way back to the mine the ore was dug from.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)

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

#192

Post by gorgoiler » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #154

gorgoiler wrote: post #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 awa…

No thanks. As a member of a small party that seems like it would just make us unable to meet the ridiculous requirements to qualify. As it is right now we can just pay for ads instead of having to meet arbitrary criteria. Thats a much fairer state of things

When you register to appear as an option on a ballot paper, wouldn’t that be sufficient to qualify for your quota of airtime for which you do not have to spend campaign funds?

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

#193

Post by orky56 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #85

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. Every political movement in history has consisted of forming groups, contacting potential allies, soliciting donations from them, then spending that money on pamphlets, TV, radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work. The medium has now shifted a…

With income inequality rising, the revolving door between public/private sector, and lobbying, the power of the citizenry compared to the wealthy individuals is becoming smaller. An individual can make a single post and get a single like that is shown within a closed network while a dollar can do the same on these networks. The only place left for a citizen to make a difference is at the voting booth with their one powerful vote. However the influence on that voter is guided through means the voter is not aware of.

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

#194

Post by gorgoiler » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #137

gorgoiler wrote: post #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 awa…

What about all the "independent" "non-affiliated" groups who are absolutely tied to a political party? How do you adjudicate those edge cases? It's the edge cases, IMO, that are the real bear here.

If they are absolutely tied to a political party, then they would count towards the quota. If they claim not to have a link then it becomes Facebook’s job to determine if there is one, which seems a lot more tractable than determining if a fact is true or false.

Easy at least when the message is “don’t vote for Bob!”, than when it is “we don’t see any harm in GMO wheat”. Unattributed attack ads are pretty obvious but it’s harder to tie issue ads to the party they benefit.

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

#195

Post by dominostars » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #183

dominostars wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content on Facebook is intentionally made to look like a post from your friend. Advertising in newspapers was always clearly differentiated or even sectioned off.

No it doesn't. In both Facebook and in newspapers there are a few words at the top. Sure, this can be misunderstood or go unnoticed, but it does in both cases.

Can you give examples of newspaper ads that are made to look like just another article on the same page?

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

#196

Post by rebuilder » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #93

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 was the case years ago. Facebook does not show every post in your followers stream. Once you get to a certain size, you have to pay to ensure the message gets delivered with boosted posts and such. Many of these political organizations have popular Facebook pages and still have to pay to get their posts into their followers streams.

Aha, now it makes sense that Zuckerberg is so insistent on keeping political ads.

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

#197

Post by aggie » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

texuf wrote: post #179

landryraccoon wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to pro…

Just because I’m subscribed to someone on social media doesn’t mean they show up in my feed. That change happened long ago. It’s only guaranteed to show up if they pay.

It's not going to show up in everyone's feed if you pay either. You're just talking degrees of exposure. Getting to 100% of eyeballs vs. 80% or 10% is arbitrary.

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

#198

Post by newen » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

xwowsersx wrote: post #187

landryraccoon wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to pro…

Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.

That's why people build movements, why activism is a thing. Money shortcuts all of that and gives undue voice to people with the most money.

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

#199

Post by mattnewton » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #22

I'm mostly confused as to what sorts of free speech is being violated by not using ads? Parties can post on their facebook pages and comment the same way users can. Isn't that equal speech? What's the dimension I'm missing?

It’s even worse than non-sponsored content competing with sponsored content IMO. These sponsored posts do not have any controls I am aware of to prevent them from running afoul of the FEC’s rules on attribution. Meaning, I can set up a new account and start paying for political ads against my opponent that are not traceable back to the candidate I work for. And worse, because of targeting controls and the ephemeral nature of the Facebook feed, it is possible to completely fly under the radar of people who would notice the violation and report it to regulators, like supporters of the attacked candidate.

I think the main reason they want sponsored content is, well, it pays their salaries and fuels the stock’s valuation.

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

#200

Post by aggie » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

xwowsersx wrote: post #187

landryraccoon wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to pro…

Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.

Why should any individual be given outsize voice in a democracy, if not by amplification from many others?