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

Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#21

Post by smt88 »

cogman10 wrote: post #8
daenz wrote: post #2

Relevant information: >"Facebook does not have a policy that bans advertising on the basis that it expresses opposition to vaccines," a Facebook spokesperson said. "Our policy is to ban ads containing vaccine misinformation." The ad Buzzfeed thinks is in violation: >One ad reads, “Is the vaccine the best option? And if not, what is?” Another says, “Click below for a FREE guide for Pertussis which will include: Vaccin…

> Our policy is to ban ads containing vaccine misinformation Well, ok, so the only ads they ban are ads that say "Vaccines cause autism!". How useful is that as a policy? By the same metric a "Find out the truth about the moon landing!" would contain no false information about the moon landing even though the link is chalk full of it. Has anyone ever seen or produced an ad that actually runs afoul of this policy? If…

Facebook does this so often (lip service with no real practical effects) that we can't consider it to be helplessness anymore. A company so routinely ineffective at fixing its mistakes must be lying about actually believing they were mistakes.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#22

Post by daenz »

bduerst wrote: post #20
daenz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The larger picture may not be cut and dry, but this example is. The wording of the policy is very clear, and so is the wording of the ads in question.

No, it's not. An ad's destination page is subject to Facebooks advertising policy: >During the ad review process, we'll check your ad's images, text, targeting, and positioning, in addition to the content on your ad's landing page. Your ad may not be approved if the landing page content isn't fully functional, doesn't match the product/service promoted in your ad or doesn't fully comply with our Advertising Policies.…

Huh, I didn't know that strictly the same policies applied to both the ad content and the ad destination.

What's your explanation for Facebook leaving up the ad and issuing the statement that they did then? It appears they are standing by their choice on some grounds, and I'm curious what your interpretation of that is.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#23

Post by deweller »

munk-a wrote: post #4

This, along with political ads, is a pretty amazingly good example of how facebook was wrong - they can't deliver advertising to customers at higher efficacy and lower cost than traditional media... what they can do is fail to properly vet ads for cheaper than traditional media spends vetting ads. I feel like this problem should start the sounding of warning bells around the efficiencies tech companies create. A lot…

Just because they fail to properly vet ads for cheaper than traditional media doesn't mean they can't still deliver advertising to customers at higher efficacy and lower cost than traditional media.

The cost just might not be as low as they had hoped.

I'd like to see some tech innovation around peer to peer governance and enforcement of rules. Government is going to struggle to keep up with the sheer volume of advertising on the web. Asking a central authority to police all of it is not a recipe for success. Can we incentivize consumers to enforce ad regulations in a meaningful way? That might lead to a better advertising world for all of us.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#24

Post by davidw »

alanlovestea wrote: post #16
r00fus wrote: post #13

Why are they allowed to profit from spreading misinformation without consequence?

On the flip side, do you want Facebook or any company to control what you can or can not say?

I think this is a more complex issue than some make it out to be.

That said, if you walk into a restaurant and start yelling about something, they can absolutely kick you out, because it's a private company, not the government.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#25

Post by munificent »

jp42 wrote: post #6

What are the incentives or driving force behind anti-vaxxers? I am amazed why someone is putting money and efforts on anti-vaccination. Personally its hard to believe it become a big thing without some sort incentives/driving force.

As the article states, these anti-vax pamphlets suggest parents buy the advertisers natural remedy products instead.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#26

Post by brianwawok »

alanlovestea wrote: post #16
r00fus wrote: post #13

Why are they allowed to profit from spreading misinformation without consequence?

On the flip side, do you want Facebook or any company to control what you can or can not say?

Do I want regulations that would prevent things that are illegal to say on one media form to apply to all? Sure. You can't just go buy a TV ad that says "blue cars cause cancer", knowing that it will drive business away from a guy you hate that makes blue cars. But I can go have that facebook ad up in 5 minutes.

As part of living in a society, I am happy to cede some freedoms for a better world.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#27

Post by r00fus »

alanlovestea wrote: post #16
r00fus wrote: post #13

Why are they allowed to profit from spreading misinformation without consequence?

On the flip side, do you want Facebook or any company to control what you can or can not say?

They already do. These are advertisements and Facebook accepts money and approves them explicitly (and limits what advertisers can say/do already).

Random FB post - yeah maybe theres a 1st amendment argument there - but ads are already "Facebook authorized speech"

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#28

Post by gortep »

brianwawok wrote: post #26
alanlovestea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, do you want Facebook or any company to control what you can or can not say?

Do I want regulations that would prevent things that are illegal to say on one media form to apply to all? Sure. You can't just go buy a TV ad that says "blue cars cause cancer", knowing that it will drive business away from a guy you hate that makes blue cars. But I can go have that facebook ad up in 5 minutes. As part of living in a society, I am happy to cede some freedoms for a better world.

[dead]

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#29

Post by happytoexplain »

sebasmurphy wrote: post #19
jp42 wrote: post #6

What are the incentives or driving force behind anti-vaxxers? I am amazed why someone is putting money and efforts on anti-vaccination. Personally its hard to believe it become a big thing without some sort incentives/driving force.

I feel like Companies like Goop and other "natural" health companies profit from this stuff as a side-effect. Like who else could you market this type of crap to. https://shop.goop.com/shop/products/rose-quartz-bottle?taxon...

Ironically, I've seen a lot of people (including firsthand) who consider things like Goop to be "liberal" nonsense, yet consider vaccines dangerous because of the conspiracy/general-distrust-of-experts angles.

Re: Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation

#30

Post by colejohnson66 »

daenz wrote: post #12
eropple wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ad doesn't contain misinformation, merely opposition. Can you show me a formulation of "vaccine opposition" that does not require misinformation to be credible?

Sure: there's the idea of opposing vaccines because you want the absolute option of bodily autonomy over what gets injected into your bloodstream.

The thing about you deciding what goes into you is that it is harming other people. Your rights stop once you harm others.
Post reply on HN