Money doesn't talk, it swears.
-- Bob Dylan
Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
281–290 of 371 posts
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And yet I can pay to not see ads on Youtube and Twitch. Is there something different about video vs written content?
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#283We 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.
Because the story arc goes like this:
1) people notice someone has gotten power
2) people notice the person is being shitty about it
3) people insist that responsibility and power go hand in hand
4) person does not rise to the challenge
5) people take the power away
Making them accountable is the warning shot. Next step is divestiture.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#284Earlier 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…
No we’re not missing that
Just because that’s “how it was” does not mean we have to continue to politically acquiesce to it going forward
If that’s your argument for doing nothing wouldn’t that have been a great way to frame it 250 years ago
“Well Britain & the king are just doing what they always have done!”
Grow up, man. Grow up HN.
This is fealty to nonsense emotional crying on the part of average humans who have been emotionally fluffed into believing they’re owed our deference
Until Zuck can conjure a plague or part the seas, he’s just one man and can go screw
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#285I'd be OK with Zuck's approach, IFF it were implemented with full transparency.
I define full transparency as providing a full, near-real-time, public record of EVERY advert run, including (but not limited to): who paid for it & in what currency, all targeting parameters, and count of views.
This would allow any person, public interest group, competitor, or other interested party to be informed and respond as they saw appropriate.
This would also make FB adverts more like major media adverts, where anyone can (with a little bit of work) see exactly who is running what for & against their position.
As FB is currently opaque, it is a magnet for manipulators seeking the holy grail of adverts, micro-targeted at the exact people who will respond, highly effective at changing behavior, and completely unnoticed by the opposition. FB may see this as attracting revenue, but the transparent option described above will likely generate more with the likely cycles of responses to adverts, counter-responses, etc.
False claims, wholly misleading edits? Fine, just as long as everyone can see who's spreading that crap, and to whom, and can respond.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#286>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…
"You can be unethical and still be legal that's the way I run my life haha." — Mark Zuckerberg
https://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-mark-zuckerbergs-s...
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#287I’ve had several occasions where a coworker in a meeting said words to the effect of “if someone offers us money we’re gonna take it.” Blurting out, “so you’re a whore then” in a staff meeting? Not okay. So I just stared. If I could stand to look at Zuck I’d be staring right now.
I once remarked to an editor (reporter) for a tech news site
(appearing occasionally on HN) that a specific channel there listed itself as specifically sponsored.
Their response: I'm glad to hear we're and not .
(Using words beginning with 'W' and 'S' respectively for each concept.)
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#288Zuck, it's a private company, you don't owe anyone a "voice" especially fake political ads. Just shut it all down if you don't want to fact check. it's all less than 1% of your ad revenue. Be the good guy for once instead of the mocked automaton everyone thinks you are.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
With very hefty caveats. It's not a blanket protection
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#290I want to ask the "Free speech" defenders on this thread, if the political ads are properly labeled and FB offers me a switch to turn them all off would it make you happy?
Keep in mind that a critical element of political (and in broader scope, all) advertising, is that its effects are not simply limited to the direct recipient. Political advertising literally shapes representation and policy.
This is even more the case for narrowly targeted, and particularly negative / dissuading advertising. A chief tool and complaint in recent years has been of suppressing voter turnout, at times through issue advertising, but also specifically by spreading disinformation about candidates, voting processes, locations, times, and requirements.
Simply disabling advertising for a narrow range of users capable and motivated to block ads does not protect against the social consequences of such activities.
That's from someone who's not a free-speech absolutist.