321–330 of 371 posts
You don't dig in your heels because that attracts the media attention, like a shark to a drop of blood. You say "This is something we're going to look at and evaluate closely." And then wait until the news gets bored of it. And then quietly release that you won't because of several reasons.
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.
That's not true for Facebook or any other advertising platform. These platforms have entire sets of policies on what ads they will or will not run. Some restrictions are legally mandated, while others are based their own internal standards (i.e. they won't run blatantly racist ads even though they aren't technically illegal).
The decision to run political ads regardless of whether they contain lies is a specific choice they are making, not something that emerges from a universal principle of access to paid advertising.
And it's Mr. Zuckerberg's right to choose that route, as CEO of his company. But it doesn't absolve him of criticism for making the decision the way he did, whether from Mr. Dorsey, or a random nobody on this forum.
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…
>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…
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.
> The main site is bound to fall out of fashion, and soon. Uhhh, that already happened many years ago. Talk to anyone under 30, and Facebook is VERY out of style/out-of-date. They will most likely laugh at you or think you're being ironic if you were to bring up "hanging out on Facebook" or anything like that.
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?
>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…
Free speech at least in the US is protected by the constitution so if this was a free speech issue it wouldn't be on the table because the answer would be: you can't restrict it.
They want the speech which is best for their business. What else are they, a corporation, supposed to want?
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…
If I may jump in here, I live in a country where political advertisement is strictly regulated and almost all political debate takes place on public television, available to everyone, and there's a commitment to neutrality in reporting and equal representation of all parties.
Now this surely doesn't give everyone the same voice and many people are still marginalised and despite the lack of money involvement are excluded, but it may be worth pointing out that the US status quo is not the only model on this planet.
Instead of increasing the asymmetry by letting those with more money expand their influence even more, you could take measures to level the playing field.
>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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically those of someone with the money to promote their voice. If I may jump in here, I live in a country where political advertisement is strictly regulated and almost all political debate takes place on public television, available to everyone, and there's a commitment to neutrality in reporting and equal representation of all parties. Now this…