121–130 of 510 posts
Facebook has a really interesting feature that I haven’t seen in Twitter, Google, or others. I can block all ads from a page. Whenever I see a political ad, I can choose “don’t show me any more ads from XXX” and it actually works. This was a godsend during the primary and I wish was available in other platforms. I’m surprised they have this feature and have expected it to go away for years.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just use ublock origin?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you propose to fix that? Should candidates only be allowed to make "true" statements?
This wouldn't completely fix the problem, but I think it would help to not allow candidates to make factually false statements. That is to say: there may not be a way to objectively say whether a given statement is true, but it is possible to objectively say that some statements are false.
Facebook has a really interesting feature that I haven’t seen in Twitter, Google, or others. I can block all ads from a page. Whenever I see a political ad, I can choose “don’t show me any more ads from XXX” and it actually works. This was a godsend during the primary and I wish was available in other platforms. I’m surprised they have this feature and have expected it to go away for years.
Doesn't such a feature contribute to the creation of echo chambers? It's hard to tell when it comes to something like ads as they usually aren't a great source of information.
Facebook has a really interesting feature that I haven’t seen in Twitter, Google, or others. I can block all ads from a page. Whenever I see a political ad, I can choose “don’t show me any more ads from XXX” and it actually works. This was a godsend during the primary and I wish was available in other platforms. I’m surprised they have this feature and have expected it to go away for years.
Doesn't such a feature contribute to the creation of echo chambers? It's hard to tell when it comes to something like ads as they usually aren't a great source of information.
Political adverts isn't the main problem. The key issue is that the candidates can say virtually anything they want irrespectively whether it's true or not.The blame game is huge as well and shouldn't be allowed at all. Until all this is fixed, there's not much hope for any ON/OFF settings on social media.
How would you propose to fix that? Should candidates only be allowed to make "true" statements?
It's a good feature from an individual perspective. It's not a good feature if you don't like cultural bubbles forming. Democrats will block Republican ads, Republicans will block Democrat ads - will that lead to a better world when Republicans can't reach Democrat voters or vice versa? I find this focus (attack?) on political advertising on social media platforms by traditional media companies to be self-serving and…
I have never have, nor never will, vote along party lines. I am, proudly, unaffiliated.
The problem is not "our poor users are bombarded with untrue political ads!" The problem is that Facebook has become a cesspool that breeds conspiracy theories and communities of disinformation and denial the same way that stagnant swampwater breeds mosquitoes and other harmful pests. Its tight-knit havens of the willfully disinformed will not opt out of "the real truth" (read: the coordinated distribution of lies).
If Facebook was actually interested in addressing the problem of its festering pits of QAnon and antivaxxers and the like, it would start by deplatforming advertisers who intentionally spread lies. No, it's clear that Facebook's intent here is to put up the paltriest, lowest-actual-impact defense against any sort of consequences that legal systems might bring against it.
It's a good feature from an individual perspective. It's not a good feature if you don't like cultural bubbles forming. Democrats will block Republican ads, Republicans will block Democrat ads - will that lead to a better world when Republicans can't reach Democrat voters or vice versa? I find this focus (attack?) on political advertising on social media platforms by traditional media companies to be self-serving and…
It can be one motive but it's not the only one. Can be the driver for a lot of actors attacking social media but we can't deny that social media has enabled a lot of new techniques for reaching an audience in a much easier and rapid platform than ever before. Those techniques have been twisted into the range of untruthfulness that we couldn't have seen before in the old media because moderation was much more strict (…
That's not even remotely true. The Atlantic put together snippets of political ads over decades [1]. It's pretty crazy stuff. The local stuff, just from personal memory, was even crazier, frequently asserting the equivalent of the opposition being murderers.
>Very few campaigns ran on extreme blatant lies and warped reality as we have seen the past few years...
The problem is that even that perspective is your personal bias which you're using to justify censorship. The other side is bad and lying and therefore they wrong so they shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully at some point someone notices that politics are a huge turn-off for many people. I live in Poland and EA decided they need me to see a statement for BLM in one of their games. What's the value of that? I have zero influence over the things happening in US and it's not like the topic is not all over the internet anyway. If it weren't for the fact that I play that game with friends I would just uninstall it c…
>What's the value of that? I have zero influence over the things happening in US BLM isn't only relevant to the US. It's not as if Poland doesn't have any issues with racism. I actually think this has been one of the positive effects of the high profile of BLM. Too many European countries have been content to tell themselves that racism is an American problem which they don't have.
BLM has no monopoly on fighting racism. EAs claims to be interested in fighting racism is an insult to many people. I think a lot of members of BLM are racists.
Facebook has a really interesting feature that I haven’t seen in Twitter, Google, or others. I can block all ads from a page. Whenever I see a political ad, I can choose “don’t show me any more ads from XXX” and it actually works. This was a godsend during the primary and I wish was available in other platforms. I’m surprised they have this feature and have expected it to go away for years.
What are you talking about? Twitter lets you block advertiser accounts. I would say Twitter is better about it, because they just let me block the account. Facebook makes (or rather, used to make) me go through several steps of "are you sure? wouldn't you rather just hide this person? what if you asked them nicely first?" bullshit. And after doing it a few times (maybe two dozen?), suddenly the block feature was gone…