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

#271

Post by pm90 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #232

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…

> 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 promote their voice. What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically those of someone with the money to promote their voice. Suppose you have an idea in your head and you want to get it out there. The first thing you have to do is express t…

I don't really get your point. What you're saying is that a good message takes a lot of resources to communicate effectively. That is true regardless of whether you can use social media to promote those messages.

Conversely, targeted advertisement lets you bombard people with certain inclinations with ads that nudge them to behave in a certain way. That isn't free speech, its targeted manipulation. The targeting is whats important here. For selling goods and services, its fine. For selling leaders or tarnishing leaders, its evil.

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

#272

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

petewailes wrote: post #3

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.

It's censoring advertising (or it would be if they did it), not speech. That's not even remotely the same.

Technically, they are kindof the same. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech (of which advertising is a part of) has Constitutional protection.[0][1]

[0]: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech

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

#273

Post by seagull » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

The rich and powerful already have exponentially more of a voice than the average person -- media corporations are privately owned, after all, and no one is suggesting that we prevent them from making political statements. Banning political advertising is basically saying that people or groups with thousands or millions of dollars to spend shouldn't be able to get their message out -- only billionaires should be able to do that.

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

#274

Post by shawndrost » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #264

rayiner wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Facebook is obviously not bound by the first amendment, the fact that something is paid doesn’t undermine its nature as free speech. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” which sparked the American Revolution, was published and sold for profit. https://www.printmag.com/editors-picks/power-of-print-common... . (Though Paine donated his share to the Continental Army.) Paine got his message out by contracting with for-pr…

I think there is a pretty clear difference between publishers which sell speech to people that want to buy it and advertisers that take money in return for putting speech in front of people automatically. Maybe both forms of money entangled speech are worthy of the same protections. But they are two different things.

As I understand the function of a publisher, it is predominantly about marketing and distribution, and putting a book in front of people who otherwise wouldn't have heard of it or bought it.

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

#275

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:07 PM UTC

mwsfc wrote: post #268

My take? This is really a pretty simple equation for FB. Politcal ads = good business opportunity ....perhaps essential. Since FB tends to be a self-reinforcing echo chamber on both ends of the political spectrum, political ads will keep users engaged with the platform. For a variety of reasons interest in the 2020 campaign is likely to be sky high so allowing the ads should keeps FB's DAU's & MAU's in the preferred…

It sounds like you’re saying that because Facebook wants more money, they can do what they want. No. They shouldn’t get a free pass simply because it maximizes profit.

Slight tangent: Regulation is a thing because businesses have been shown to not self regulate when its in their best interest not to. A corporation maximizing profits could be a good thing for consumers, but it could also be bad. And when it’s bad, that’s when regulation is supposed to come in.

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

#276

Post by colejohnson66 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #144

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.

People are upset because he’s allowing ads that flat out lie simply because they’re a political ad. If the some Democratic nominee put out an ad saying “Trump reverses decision to ban LGBTQ+ from the military,” despite it being blatantly false (there’s no gray truth in that), they would allow it.

This rule means I could go form a PAC and post a ridiculous ad like “Voting for Biden will give you AIDS.” That has no basis in reality, yet from Zuckerberg’s words, it sounds like they would allow it.

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

#277

Post by core-questions » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

fermenflo wrote: post #260

semiotagonal wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed It's not your feed, it's their feed; you're just the person eating it.

Thank you... Everyone seems to be forgetting that this is a 100% opt-in service. Why do we get to say what FB is obligated to do and to what standards they have to keep their website at?

Because Facebook occupies a nearly-monopolistic position that has somewhat replaced the public square in modern life. It's not just any other service, anymore; it's far bigger and needs to be legislated upon as such.

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

#278

Post by tathougies » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #276

tathougies wrote: post #144

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.

People are upset because he’s allowing ads that flat out lie simply because they’re a political ad. If the some Democratic nominee put out an ad saying “Trump reverses decision to ban LGBTQ+ from the military,” despite it being blatantly false (there’s no gray truth in that), they would allow it. This rule means I could go form a PAC and post a ridiculous ad like “Voting for Biden will give you AIDS.” That has no bas…

Good! That's fantastic. Some people believe those things. It's not just your voice and those of people like you that should be heard in a democracy. No one in any country has sole authority to determine 'fact'. If they did, we should just appoint them to be king, call them 'god', and be done with the whole government thing.

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

#279

Post by ep103 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

nidificate wrote: post #252

cabaalis wrote: post #224

The primary problem is that it's not illegal for politicians to lie to the electorate. Without solving that problem, we will always have sub-par leadership and questions about what is or is not a valid advertisement. In official capacity (under oath) it's illegal for us to lie to them. In their official capacity (under oath of office) they get to lie all day long, straight through their teeth. CEOs can't defraud thei…

Often times in politics, what is a "lie" is more a matter of opinion rather than fact. Who gets to be the arbiter of truth?

If only we had some sort of system, where individuals could be sued for making damaging statements. Maybe each side could present their case, and a jury of their peers could be the ultimate deciders.

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

#280

Post by austincheney » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:21 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…

> You might say - and I'd certainly agree - that the real problem is a world where everyone is on Twitter and Facebook to the exclusion of all else

Then I would say you are living in artificial world delightful for advertisers. I have a Twitter account that I have not really used in a decade and nobody else in my family has ever touched Twitter. My wife has a Facebook account she uses to keep in touch with family, but nobody else in my family has a Facebook account. I know MANY people in my professional world who have neither.