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

#211

Post by whiddershins » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

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?

The people who would pay it are the exact same people who are worth the most to advertise to.

This is why you can’t pay to get a version of The NY Times that has no ads.

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

#212

Post by readams » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

CharlesColeman wrote: post #209

readams wrote: 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.

> 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. They won't be any kind of "arbiter of truth" if they just decide to refuse to carry all political ads, like Twitter has decided to do. I think that it's quite possible that a total laissez faire attitude towards quantity of paid speech may be incompatible with…

You believe that all political advertising of all kinds should be simply banned?

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

#213

Post by crtlaltdel » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:57 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…

don't "traditional" media outlets already decide what ads to run, and reject ads that do not meet their standards (along with any applicable regulatory constraints)? i was under the impression that even the Penny Saver circulars reserve the right to deny ad placements based on their own, internal standards.

obviously i don't know much about this area...if anyone has canonical references they could point to i'd love to learn more.

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

#214

Post by wavefunction » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #173

wavefunction wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Progressives dominate the media Don't y'all have Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting?

So you agree that all other media is dominated by progressives and everyone else should just settle Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting?

No I don't agree. I am just pointing out that you have outlets available to you. From what I can tell the media is mostly about middle-of-the-road inoffensive capitalism.

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

#215

Post by knzhou » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

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?

Because in practice a negligible fraction of people is willing to pay even a nominal fee for something they think they can get for free. Just a few days ago we had an article full of outrage that Google asked people to pay a small fee once their extremely generous Gmail storage filled up, because they were used to thinking email was free.

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

#216

Post by dyslexit » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

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.

> Facebook, the platform, is in trouble.

Sadly this isn't true at all. They've been posting record profits and growth all year. Just yesterday they posted their third quarter results, where their sales rose 29% and user base increased by 35 million, including by 3 million in North America [0], despite negative news surrounding them all year. Most people simply don't care, or care enough to actually delete their accounts over these things.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-30/facebook-...

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

#217

Post by jackinloadup » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #198

xwowsersx wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By that definition people who want to voice their opinions shouldn't pay for any service which would amplify that voice. That could be a sign, megaphone, stage, internet, website, youtube channel (camera).

If I'm able to have more signs or youtube channels people will pay more attention to me and thus I'm using an advantage the other party may not have the financial ability to respond to.

I think this idea could go further but it seems obvious that money is another unbiased tool to promote your speech. Money doesn't have a political affiliation. People can use money in a biased way just like they can use a camera, tv channel, or sign to have a bias. The medium isn't biased the way it's used is.

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

#218

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

landryraccoon wrote: post #169

Lazare wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Why do people with extra time get to be heard more than people with extra money? I don't have the ability to take 20% time off my work to promote my message, but I have saved up some money.

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

#219

Post by knzhou » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

nicpottier wrote: post #90

nicpottier wrote: post #82

I just watched The Great Hack, which I can't say is fantastic as a whole, but does still raise some terrifying points of the power of targeted political ads and how they are being weaponized. I really don't see any other choice but to ban political ads entirely as Twitter is doing. For those that haven't seen it, here's some backstory on one piece about the Trinidad election: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-mon…

That's a long link, so the part in question. Note this is from a taped pitch from the president of Cambridge Analytica, this isn't hearsay, it is from the horse's mouth: > Nix moved on to pitch his next case study – a youth mobilisation campaign. Again, all is not as it seems. “Trinidad is a very interesting case history of how we look at problems,” Nix said. “Trinidad's tiny – it's 1.3 million people – but almost ex…

You have to keep in mind that you're not listening to a journalistic expose of the Trinidad election -- you are listening to a sales pitch from Cambridge Analytica, which has all the motivation to vastly exaggerate their influence. I've been unable to find any reference to this "Do So" campaign anywhere except for Cambridge Analytica bragging about it. Furthermore as described this was an old-fashioned campaign, which had more to do with physical materials handed out than social media ads.

The same caveats went for all the "psychological targeting" they bragged about a few years ago; there is precious little evidence that it is better than targeting roughly by political party, which we've had for decades. For its power, we only have their word to go on.

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

#220

Post by CharlesColeman » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

readams wrote: post #212

CharlesColeman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. They won't be any kind of "arbiter of truth" if they just decide to refuse to carry all political ads, like Twitter has decided to do. I think that it's quite possible that a total laissez faire attitude towards quantity of paid speech may be incompatible with…

You believe that all political advertising of all kinds should be simply banned?

> You believe that all political advertising of all kinds should be simply banned?

I clearly said no such thing. I merely pointed out that 1) Facebook can respond to these problems without doing any (private) viewpoint censorship and 2) we as a society may need to adjust the parameters around paid speech to protect democracy. Most things aren't black and white, and the choice isn't a binary one between extremes like laissez faire and total bans.