Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#81

Post by rumanator » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)

I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. It seems like the goal, or at least the unintentional effect, is to reinforce the traditional media’s monopoly on political discourse.

> I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising.

I feel like you are inadvertedly misrepresenting OP's point. The OP specifically referred to geographically targeted ads, which have already a long history of being manipulated to subvert the Democratic process by foreign actors with disastrous consequences, and instead you somehow are talking about "closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising"?

It might not have been your intention but your post sounds like a disingenuous strawman.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#82

Post by rayiner » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

jmedefind wrote: post #68

rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. It seems like the goal, or at least the unintentional effect, is to reinforce the traditional media’s monopoly on political discourse.

Traditional media political ads can't micro-target people that are more likely get sucked into their made up "facts" and conspiracy theories. They also are broadly broadcast so that they can be dis-proven and discussed. Instead they are hidden away only shown to people that won't question it. If facebook wants to do political ads then it needs to disconnect them from targeting, publish them for public display, publis…

I’d put it differently: targeted ads allow campaigns to do more with less by focusing on people who are more likely to be receptive to their messages. That’s a valuable thing that shouldn’t be prohibited.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#83

Post by abhchand » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

> While Facebook will select the first 11 members of the board, the eleven will choose the remaining board members, with terms lasting three years.

Call me skeptical but that's not enough to distance yourself and set up a "fair" court. Facebook still has lots of influence and I doubt they'll recommend something that would truly hurt Facebook's bottom line.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#84

Post by zmzrr » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

pesenti wrote: post #23

Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.

> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)

How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all? They don't even share ad inventory. It looks like you're out to hurt the company and that's it.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#85

Post by Mountain_Skies » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

zmzrr wrote: post #79

LatteLazy wrote: post #64

In fairness, here in the UK at least, the print media are going nuts about Facebook and Google failing to stop fake news and politicians' lies. Coincidentally they're bashing their competitors for something they themselves do just as much, make of that what you will... That is one reason fb (and maybe Google too and twitter and whoever else) are donating: make an independent sock puppet, they can decide and you just…

The mass media is going nuts about not controlling the narrative anymore, that's why they want to bury big tech. They will lose in the end, so I don't know if it's worth it to fight.

Big tech also wants to control the narrative. Due to the nature of their platforms, it's much more difficult to do but that hasn't stopped them from making a mess trying.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#86

Post by officeplant » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

They'll need to hire idubbz so they can have a proper content cop for the content court.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#87

Post by mc32 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #64

In fairness, here in the UK at least, the print media are going nuts about Facebook and Google failing to stop fake news and politicians' lies. Coincidentally they're bashing their competitors for something they themselves do just as much, make of that what you will... That is one reason fb (and maybe Google too and twitter and whoever else) are donating: make an independent sock puppet, they can decide and you just…

Sadly, I think you’re right. Traditional media is hemming and hawing about this mostly because now there is someone else who is doing what they did for so long which was to set narratives with little pushback.

Now they’re losing grip on relevance and they don’t like it one bit.

For a lesson, see their reaction to Richard Jewell vs All The Presidents Men. They like being seen as heroes, even if the facts are stretched, but if they are shown less gloriously, they complain about the fictionalization aspect...

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#88

Post by rumanator » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

chapium wrote: post #57

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)

I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up? Google is a far more threatening power over my day to day activities.

> I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up?

Because they are a dragnet of private information that is used specifically against your best interests, both private and public.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#89

Post by rayiner » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

rumanator wrote: post #81

rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. It seems like the goal, or at least the unintentional effect, is to reinforce the traditional media’s monopoly on political discourse.

> I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. I feel like you are inadvertedly misrepresenting OP's point. The OP specifically referred to geographically targeted ads, which have already a long history of being manipulated to subvert the Democratic process by foreign actors with disastrous consequences, and instead you somehow are talking about "closing off an entire sec…

OP said “ban non-geographically targeted ads.” Besides, the “long history of being manipulated ... with disastrous consequences” is a [citation needed] assertion. Certainly, the thin support for that position doesn’t overcome the fact that it makes total sense to allow targeting ads by geography. There is no point in Trump running ads in Baltimore, or Warren running ads in rural Virginia.

Re: Facebook Pledges $130M to Fund “Supreme Court” for Content

#90

Post by 9c8675a8 » Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

FB are morons. They don't get it. Politics in-itself is fakery and nothing but a con; it's never going to change. What's happening now is that a certain group of con artists who have been having it easy now have some competition and they're not used to anything like this.