Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

Post by nidificate » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:58 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?

Post by nidificate » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

ff317 wrote: post #145

mrgreenfur wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 adver…

Post by bryan_w » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

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…

Post by wolco » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

aggie wrote: post #200

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.

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

Post by wolco » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #237

jackinloadup wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

But you are ignoring the difference in power that people have in this context. Especially in this age, when inequality is so high, it is naive to consider money to be an unbiased tool. Especially when we already live in a massively unequal stage where a few coorporations have access to the most popular websites, magazines, newpapers, tv channels, allowing money into this equation as an unbiased tool will only increas…