Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

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

#361

Post by newen »

matz1 wrote: post #360
newen wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does there have to be some permanent solution to a problem? There is no permanent solution to crime, for example. You just have law enforcement because we as a society decided that crime is bad. Similarly, if we decide that inequality in terms of being able to politically influence people is bad, and money exacerbates that inequality, then we can ban political ads. And if something else comes along that does the…

In regards to crime, i think you are talking about reducing crime, not eliminating it. My post was just talking about eliminating inequality. I make no claim about reducing inequality.

That's really a motte and bailey situation then, isn't it? You say that you are talking about eliminating inequality, but then you use that to argue that reducing inequality isn't possible while still allowing yourself to retreat to the eliminating inequality position when challenged.

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

#362

Post by matz1 »

newen wrote: post #361
matz1 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In regards to crime, i think you are talking about reducing crime, not eliminating it. My post was just talking about eliminating inequality. I make no claim about reducing inequality.

That's really a motte and bailey situation then, isn't it? You say that you are talking about eliminating inequality, but then you use that to argue that reducing inequality isn't possible while still allowing yourself to retreat to the eliminating inequality position when challenged.

I say eliminating inequality may be impossible. No where I make claim about reducing inequality.

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

#363

Post by jcranberry »

nbanks wrote: post #223
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…

This isn't a new phenomenon. I've also read magazines with advertisements disguised as articles, except for the small "advertisement" label at the top.

I don't paid for articles necessarily have to be labeled.

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

#365

Post by AnthonyMouse »

thefounder wrote: post #359
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you even need to cap it. Political spending has diminishing returns. Give candidates enough money to allow them to make their constituents aware of their positions and the competing candidate can't undo that just by outspending them. The problem is when candidates have to take money from special interests just in order to buy enough advertising to cause anyone to have even heard of them. Provide enough…

>> The problem is when candidates have to take money from special interests just in order to buy enough advertising to cause anyone to have even heard of them. Provide enough public money so that candidates don't have to do that, and then candidates won't have to do that. You forget that there is never enough money or enough advertising. All the money comes from "special interest groups" except if is provided by the…

> You forget that there is never enough money or enough advertising.

Yes there is. That's the point. Candidates regularly defeat better-funded opponents because there is a threshold of exposure past which the voters have heard what there is to hear from both candidates and more spending has diminishing returns.

> Of course people "hear" the candidates

No they don't. Can you name all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination this year? First try to off the top of your head. Now here's a list:

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-...

How many of the ones you missed have less than $5M right now vs. more than that? Pretty good correlation, right? Yet I doubt your preference between Sanders vs. Biden has that much to do with which of them has more money, because they both have more than the threshold amount needed to make you aware of their positions.

> Maybe little regulation wouldn't hurt to give a chance to the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation?

How is it supposed to help the little guy who can't afford to buy a media corporation to pass a law restricting the little guy from buying political advertising, meanwhile the people who can afford to buy a media corporation carry on doing so as ever?

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

#366

Post by atonse »

frankacter wrote: post #347
atonse wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most obvious one to me is violations of FERPA rules and posting private information/pictures of my kids in a public forum.

1) OP stated they were "notifications and polls", neither of which would contain private information or pictures. 2) You make the assumption that the school does not have a private / protected group that is used for verifying group members and protecting content from non-members.

I do make that assumption because your average staff member that would manage something like that, would do the easy path of default settings (which are probably public).

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

#367

Post by colejohnson66 »

tathougies wrote: post #278
colejohnson66 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The courts have already upheld the FTC’s authority many times in regards to false and deceptive advertising. I can’t legally make an ad that says “Vaccines cause autism; Buy homeopathic natural remedies!” Why is political advertising any different? Because then someone is the arbitrator of truth? The FTC does that already, just not with politics.

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

#369

Post by tripzilch »

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're just switching one filter "is covered by the media" for another filter "has money to pay for ads".

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

#370

Post by xwowsersx »

dredmorbius wrote: post #303
xwowsersx wrote: post #229

As best I can tell, a lot of the arguments here are something along the lines of (trying to steel man): letting politicians pay for ads in order to increase their reach reduces the competition to a question of who has the most money and gives an outsized voice to them, leaving the politicians with less money unable to compete. So in order to ensure a vibrant and fair democratic process and political debate, we should…

Much of the "sunlight" defence points back to John Stuart Mill. Mill's argument has been subtly distorted over the years. I strongly recommend Jill Gordon's paper "John Stuart Mill and the 'Marketplace of Ideas'" (1997), which explores Mill's views and the history of their use, in depth: https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_1... (Paywalled, though available via Sci-Hub / Library Genesis.) https:…

Will check it out, thanks for the suggestion.
Post reply on HN