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

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#321

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:19 PM UTC

naravara wrote: post #258

bhupy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots to unpack here. 1. That the traditional media is incentivized to be biased against social media, and "even the NYTimes" came to a conclusion that advances a social media friendly narrative is exactly the point . If we are talking about the historical biases of the NYTimes, their reporting has consistently had a bent critical of the Citizens United decision (pertaining to paid political speech) and in this partic…

> Even if one were to concede your premise that it's somehow valuable to classify American politics through another political entity's spectrum of discourse, the left-right spectrum is an extremely lossy way of encoding both social and economic views. Even breaking views down as "social" and "economic" encodes a lot of biases. In reality political views seem to align more based on a matrix of dimensions like "opennes…

> the left-right spectrum is an extremely lossy way of encoding both social and economic views.

It's not really in the US, where it's been studied and the main dimensions of political variability were a strong economic left-right axis and a weaker racial policy axis (Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy), and since that study it's pretty clear that divisions on the race axis have aligned more tightly with those on the economic axis, making the US political spectrum even closer to a unidimensional one.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#322

Post by ses1984 » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:19 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #146

ses1984 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would you want it any other way? Democracy is messy. Sounds an awful lot like giving up to me. >Do you think activists stick to facts and data to prove their case? Almost never. There's a difference between "appeal to emotion" and spewing outright lies.

>Sounds an awful lot like giving up to me No! The opposite in fact! When Democracy is messy it means there's a lot of 'bumping' and 'turn' (to use some metaphors), unlike the sterile utopia that some push for, where everything is clean and specified and everyone follows a neat pattern (to use more metaphors). For example, I love how messy caucuses are, people are yelling and clamouring, convincing each other to join…

As long as "democracy is messy" isn't used as an excuse to avoid reform, I don't care what you call it.

>The other side feels the same about your side.

"both sides are the same" NO.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#323

Post by dorkwood » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #301

This may sound positive (less ads, less disinformation) at first glance, but I think it's actually a terrible and dangerous development. Zuck has seen that he's going to get hate no matter what his political content moderation policy is, so he thinks he can escape that by literally escaping from it: letting users just turn it off. But while he has the legal right to, in the larger societal sense it's dangerously and…

To test the strength of this argument, I'm imagining a world in which ads have invaded our homes even further, and can now be found on the refrigerator door, the bathroom mirror, and the bedroom ceiling. Would you consider switching off political ads in those places to be relinquishing your duties as a democratic citizen?

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#324

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

mgbmtl wrote: post #305

crazygringo wrote: post #301

This may sound positive (less ads, less disinformation) at first glance, but I think it's actually a terrible and dangerous development. Zuck has seen that he's going to get hate no matter what his political content moderation policy is, so he thinks he can escape that by literally escaping from it: letting users just turn it off. But while he has the legal right to, in the larger societal sense it's dangerously and…

Ads give more power to those with more money. It's not a leveled playing field, at least in the US. Many countries limit spending on adverts (or campaigns in general) for this reason.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#325

Post by ncallaway » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

biscottigelato wrote: post #274

ncallaway wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accomm…

> It's always a trade-off

I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable.

However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited.

I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#326

Post by banads » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #317

banads wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. False, see Cambridge Analytica.

> False, see Cambridge Analytica. Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Also, by now Cambridge Analytica’s data has been shown to have been mostly useless at meaningful targeting. Even the New York Times reported that Cambridge Analytica’s impact on the election of Donald Trump as preside…

>Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa).

Watch The Great Hack. It's not about targeting people who are thoroughly entrenched in their views like you. It's about targeting swing voters

>If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show me what that system is, and I'll try and use it to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Read up on Social Engineering. Victor Lustig "sold" the Eiffel Tower twice using social engineering tactics.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#327

Post by kortilla » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #235

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chaos is way easier to game if your goal is to accentuate chaos to an extreme. It's a mistake to think all competitors want a competitor they can trick into helping them. What if they just want to see their competition crumble?

The implicit and critical part of this 'chaos' is decentralization and localism. When every caucus is run differently and by local organization, that's not easier to game. The only way to game that kind of system is to centralize and standardize the process ... which is exactly what is happening. > What if they just want to see their competition crumble? Who cares! Every person will have different motives for doing w…

Russian troll farms drove nice wedges across the US on all kinds of issues (by boosting the extreme viewpoints) and it worked wonderfully despite there being no central/standardized process.

Caucuses are impacted by that just as much as any other process.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#328

Post by bhupy » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

banads wrote: post #326

bhupy wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> False, see Cambridge Analytica. Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Also, by now Cambridge Analytica’s data has been shown to have been mostly useless at meaningful targeting. Even the New York Times reported that Cambridge Analytica’s impact on the election of Donald Trump as preside…

>Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Watch The Great Hack. It's not about targeting people who are thoroughly entrenched in their views like you. It's about targeting swing voters >If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show…

> Watch The Great Hack.

1. I've watched it.

2. You need to actually summarize here why it corroborates your argument. If I am attempting to refute your point of view, "Google it" is an extremely unconvincing line of argument.

3. Again, I provided you my sources directly, which show that it has already been reported that CA's impact on the 2016 election has been greatly overstated.

> It's about targeting swing voters

Sure, and? I can persuade someone of the most incorrect or immoral point of view, and there's not much you can do to prevent me from doing that except to try and make your own case to persuade them back. That is the consequence of living in a free society in which information can be freely disseminated. You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes". Is the New York Times "buying votes" by using their financial resources to report with a particular bias? Is Fox News "buying votes" when they do the same? No! They are publishing speech and advertising to try and persuade voters, as is the point of free expression.

While you're right that money affords one the platform to disseminate their ideologies, at the end of the day, ordinary voters need to accept that ideology, go to the ballot box, and check the box next to the name. No amount of money will install a leader that cannot convince voters to vote for them in a democratic election.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#329

Post by dfxm12 » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

hairofadog wrote: post #307

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…

> the pro-Democratic party bias in almost all traditional media I often see this presented as a given, but it doesn't ring true to me. Is there some evidence or research I'm missing showing that traditional media is biased toward the Democratic party?

Quite the opposite, when you consider how the Sinclair Broadcast group is the largest owner of local broadcast stations, where most people get their news, and force their affiliates to run certain conservative segments.

Then, consider how owners of 3 of the top 4 most circulated newspapers in the US are conservative: Frank Gannett and News Corp (which owns 2!).

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#330

Post by catalogia » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

michaelmior wrote: post #261

tlrobinson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democrats will block Republican ads, Republicans will block Democrat ads I could be wrong, but it sounds like you can just turn off all political ads, not those from specific parties.

Interestingly, it seems like if you have solidly made up your mind, you should block your own party's ads to save the unnecessary ad spend. Similarly, you should not block the other party's ads to cause them to waste ad dollars.

That assumes the annoyance you suffer would be worth the money they lose. I sincerely doubt that would be the case, unless you have an exceptionally high tolerance for annoyance.