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

Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 510 posts

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#331

Post by dragonwriter »

throwawaygh wrote: post #172
cwhiz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> Your candidate can be N different single-issue candidates in a way that's just not possible without precise targeting.

Before near real-time national news media coverage and the ubiquity of portable recording devices and online media to distribute the recordings, that was normally the case, but the segmentation was geographic and by addressing selected audiences in closed events. Many political gaffes and scandals of the last couple of decades have been candidates getting caught with unexpected exposure of addresses to either specific geographical markets or closed-group events that were less palatable to general audiences. It won't be too long before political groups maintain social media personas with a variety of constructed backgrounds to capture and expose to wider audiences to which the message would be repugnant those ads that the other side targets narrowly.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#333

Post by crazygringo »

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.

I'm not making any claims about how level the playing field is, or whether there ought to be limits to political ad spending in order to create a more balanced conversation.

I'm arguing that being able to choose to eliminate political advertising entirely is antidemocratic. That's not balance -- it's deeply unbalanced.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#334

Post by ori_b »

bhupy wrote: post #310
ori_b wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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"." Your framing here suggests that you think that I've shifted my stance in some way, but that's not the case at all. I, as a consumer of Facebook, enjoy the platform because I can…

> The fact that Facebook appears to be running their platform with this principle is in no way inconsistent with the statement "They actively want their users to be free to consume what they want, even if others think that’s bad for them."

What the hell are you talking about, "running it consistently with this principle?" Facebook is very much a platform that restricts free speech.

They even restrict political speech. Unless it comes from a political campaign. So, no, as an individual, you don't even have the option to present your own arguments.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#337

Post by crazygringo »

dorkwood wrote: post #323
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?

That's not the argument I made.

A healthy democracy needs to have places for democratic discussion. Not all places need to be for it -- that would be terrible. But some places.

Today, those places are mainly TV news/commentary, newspaper/magazine reporting and analysis, and Facebook+Twitter. Each of them have different strengths and weaknesses.

Eliminating any of them for political speech would be a huge loss. To expand beyond them (into your home and refrigerator), you'd have to make an argument that it served a purpose that wasn't already served by the three domains I already mentioned. Which I don't see an argument for.

You're posing a "slippery slope" argument here, but I don't think that applies.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#338

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #192
chii wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely the right stance to take. Nothing will change if you don't do it, and choosing to ignore politics is not going to lead to better politics. You'd just leave the bad actors all the room to act!

You're right but I think it's a mistake to assume that politics should be everyone's "thing." Everyone should vote but not everyone needs to be in the weeds of the political process unless it's something they're passionate about. And when it comes to the "civic duty" level of participation there's honestly not much that to do. You'll know pretty quick whether you're part of the red, blue, or grey tribe so you can jus…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#339

Post by boomlinde »

Spivak wrote: post #192
chii wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely the right stance to take. Nothing will change if you don't do it, and choosing to ignore politics is not going to lead to better politics. You'd just leave the bad actors all the room to act!

You're right but I think it's a mistake to assume that politics should be everyone's "thing." Everyone should vote but not everyone needs to be in the weeds of the political process unless it's something they're passionate about. And when it comes to the "civic duty" level of participation there's honestly not much that to do. You'll know pretty quick whether you're part of the red, blue, or grey tribe so you can jus…

Personally I think that if you are wholly ignorant about the potential outcomes, you should refrain from voting. You have to be "in the weeds" at least to the extent that you can make an informed decision for a vote to be constructive.

The will to vote should follow naturally from an understanding of the democratic process and its fundamental implications on society, and the availability of information that can serve as the basis of informed opinions on the subjects of policies. This needs to be promoted for a democratic society to function, and the idea that you must vote regardless needs to die. You should vote, but IMO only as a consequence of giving a damn.

As far as colored tribes go, consider the policies they agree on and evaluate whether they benefit society or not. Reducing political opinion to a matter of "tribes" creates all sorts of room for corruption and socially destructive changes that benefit the ruling class more than its constituents.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#340

Post by crazygringo »

minikites wrote: post #312
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…

>The ability to close yourself off in a bubble where you can't be reached by opposing viewpoints is relinquishing your duties as a democratic citizen. This is only true if each side has a valid and reasonable difference of opinion. This is not true for hate speech and other propaganda. For example, it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to say that people with dark skin are subhuman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagand…

Yes, which is why many European countries have laws against hate speech, although the US doesn't.

But political advertising doesn't equal hate speech. Many people currently support the idea of Facebook and Twitter prohibiting hate speech, political or not.

That has nothing to do with being able to turn off political speech in general. It's a totally separate issue.

As for propaganda, that's in the eye of the beholder. Which is why we generally frown on censorship, because one person's propaganda is another person's deeply felt, legitimate political viewpoint.

Post reply on HN