Facebook to let users turn off political adverts • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#271

Post by lisper » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #109

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's "Democratic" not "Democrat". Democratic ads. Democratic voters. Democratic party. "Democrat" is a noun. It is used by Republicans as an adjective with the intent to be belittling and pejorative. It's like calling a black man "boy". Don't do it.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#272

Post by bhupy » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

dimator wrote: post #209

captainmuon wrote: post #187

I see where they are coming from, but this seems backwards to me. I would like to block all commercial ads, but it seems really important to me that people see political ads. Granted, the current campaigns in the US are messed up and most ads look like propaganda, but this is a narrow view of what politics can be. Because on the other hand, as a political activist I know how incredibly hard it is to get your message…

> I find it frustrating and damaging to democracy that politics is viewed as something dirty. Politics should be just a domain of problem solving and discussion like programming, home improvement, or cooking - except that everybody should have a say since it affects everybody. Why do we assume everybody in politics has sinister intentions? Because politics, at least at the top levels, has been perverted by lobbying.…

> they see that fundraising for reelection is their #1 goal, full stop.

A minor nit pick: I think you're correct that reelection is their #1 goal, but fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#273

Post by ComodoHacker » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

Can we deduce from this move that political ads are a minor share of Facebook's revenue? If so, I somehow feel good about it.

Perhaps Facebook should have a legal obligation to disclose that share.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#274

Post by biscottigelato » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

ncallaway wrote: post #240

macspoofing wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What I'm not okay with is the time commitment required. I understand your position but this is way overstated. Anything worth doing is going to cost you time and effort and streamlining it will make it lose some important intrinsic property of it. Approximately 50% of American households carry credit card debt. Do you know why? Because if you truly want something, you'll find a way to get it even if it means financi…

Do you find getting an ID to be a significant burden? Probably not. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. Do you have a job that allows you to take a day off work if you need to? Probably. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. Do you have a job that doesn't require you to work on weekends? Probably. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. It's hard to ask someone to just CARE m…

Well, nothing is black or white. It's always a trade-off. Destroy the intrinsic property of the system to trade for broader access. Is it worth it?

It makes me think of the Bitcoin scaling debate. Destroy the ease of running nodes for the ease of trading at low fees. Is it worth it?

In this case, I don't think the suggestion is for people to 'care' more. At the same time we also have to recognize that we can't accommodate for everyone's situation without destroying the fundamentals of the system itself. It's a balancing act. Where the line should be drawn is probably very subjective.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#275

Post by kalleboo » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

cwhiz wrote: post #161

macspoofing wrote: post #109

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…

You can target Facebook ads with surgical precision to manipulate people exactly the way you want. This is exactly what Cambridge Analytica did. You cannot target people with such precision in traditional advertising. I don’t think it’s unfair to say social media advertising and data collection is the biggest risk to democracy that we have ever faced.

I wonder what the result would be if they disabled any kind of targeting for political ads (or massively limited it, to targeting per-state).

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#276

Post by ori_b » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #263

ori_b wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, this is a fair exception. FB has decided that it does not want to be a porn site. We may all disagree with that decision, but it's theirs to make. Yes, they've made a decision to restrict what the users can see, because facebook thinks it's bad. That's their right, but it highlights their double standard. I don't disagree with the decision, but it shows that this line of reasoning is bogus. > Can you elaborat…

> highlights their double standard "I want to build a platform where people freely discuss ideas (factual or infactual) and can pay extra to disseminate ideas more broadly (factual or infactual), but I don't want to build a porn site" is not a double standard, it's just a very specific point of view. The need for internal consistency is odd, because you could just as easily use that argument to make a strong case tha…

We've gone from

> They actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them.

To "They're legally allowed to remove whatever posts they want, and they don't need to be consistent about it".

There's a lot of shitty behavior that's legally allowed. That doesn't change the fact that "Lies are banned, unless a politician posts them" is a shitty and obviously self-serving stance to take.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#277

Post by Vysero » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

ComodoHacker wrote: post #273

Can we deduce from this move that political ads are a minor share of Facebook's revenue? If so, I somehow feel good about it. Perhaps Facebook should have a legal obligation to disclose that share.

I am not sure that we can deduce that, but regardless I feel good about it.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#278

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

Wow, Hacker News loves ads all of a sudden.

Hilarious to see people try to spin why allowing someone to personally block ads is a bad thing.

I see uBlock touted here everyday, so blocking all ads okay, but we HAVE to force people to see political ads?

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#279

Post by wpowiertowski » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

ComodoHacker wrote: post #273

Can we deduce from this move that political ads are a minor share of Facebook's revenue? If so, I somehow feel good about it. Perhaps Facebook should have a legal obligation to disclose that share.

In a way they already do, all political ads on facebook (in any country) are public information through their Ad Library Report: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?source=archive-...

Simply take their earning reports and divide one by the other and you'll get the percentage of revenue

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#280

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

naravara wrote: post #248

throwawaygh wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The targeted precision really is what's different. Your candidate can be N different single-issue candidates in a way that's just not possible without precise targeting. The "echo chambers" explanation, in particular, seems wrong. Echo chambers always existed.

>The "echo chambers" explanation, in particular, seems wrong. Echo chambers always existed. Echo chambers always did, but I think the bubble-forming dynamic we have now is a bit different. It's not that I have my own views echoed back to me by the communities I'm in all the time, it's that so much of my exposure to opposing views is often coming from some of the dumbest and most unhinged people on Earth. It's the fil…

> I think one of the big ones is that our intellectual institutions have given themselves over to internet troll logic, including many prestigious Op-Ed pages

Yes, absolutely. The prevalence of stupid "both sides" reasoning calls into being the contrarians and gives them a platform - in order to have someone say the world is round, you have to find a flat earth pundit as well and put them opposite each other so the public can enjoy the fight.

The kind of people who find themselves cited in mass shooter manifestoes. At least the Unabomber wrote his own deranged manifesto; these days people assemble them piecemeal from everyday racism and conspiracism.