Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an well-sourced Wikipedia article covering the of “Democrat” as an adjective in place of “Democratic”, including its history and Republicans citing their justification for it: https://en.m . wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
That is just so...weak. I acknowledge the historical origins, but is anyone really bothered by this? "Democrat" is obviously a demonym for those in the Democratic Party, so shortening it to the "Democrat Party" (i.e. the party of the "Democrats") seems perfectly reasonable. I mean, it does lend itself to silly orthographic puns like "DemocRAT" etc., but by itself doesn't really seem particularly offensive.
Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
431–440 of 510 posts
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great point. Will a person who turns these ads off even UNDERSTAND that they're not allowing a Black Lives Matter organization to let them know about upcoming events? How will that be explained to the user? The advertiser might only even be sharing the ads with people set up on a recurring contribution to inform them how to stay involved.
> Will a person who turns these ads off even UNDERSTAND that they're not allowing Do you not find this approach patronizing? I'm not jesting, your comments are well-informed and I am better off for having read them. Still I am curious why is it that you do not believe that people can make reasonable choices about content blocking and correctly interpret "sensitive topics that are heavily debated, may influence the ou…
As a political advertiser who jumps through huge hoops about what is and isn't allowed, what the definitions of different terms are, and how it's constantly changing and hard to keep up with even as a professional -- yeah, I can't expect others to have the time to keep up with it.
And even if they DO keep up with it, the standards are at times vague and enforced in weird, unexpected ways. What's a "sensitive" topic? Is talking about COVID masks a sensitive topic? I mean, it's recommended (now) by the CDC. But also, some people are anti-mask. There's a clear partisan divide on the mask issue. Is selling masks political? If a person wants to avoid Biden/Trump ads, should they now no longer see ads about a good deal on masks to stop spread of the coronavirus? (Companies that sell political t-shirts, even though they're not a political organization, have to be marked as politics. The content of the ad is important, not just the type of organization.)
But also, even if you're fully informed, there's little flexibility. You can't make an exception for an organization that you're a dues-paying member of so you can stay updated about how your money is being spent, for example.
Finally, that definition of social issues isn't the ONLY one (which, by the way, Facebook won't even describe to users who don't seek it out). Each individual issue area has its own definition. There are definitions about what is a "gun issue." On civil rights. On the environment. (Click "United States" at this link: https://www.facebook.com/business/help/313752069181919?id=28... ) This is super complicated and requires a large investment in time to fully understand.
I admittedly might be hyper-aware of these complications as somebody who has had to go through all this documentation to know what does and does not have to be marked as "politics" before I submit the ad for approval. (If you don't mark it properly, your ad can be delayed for days -- and politics is fast-moving.) Maybe Facebook users don't care. But there's no sense that I have from the way it was released that they sought user feedback, either from political orgs or even from the daily users of their website. What types of settings do they want? What kind of flexibility is needed? I don't see any evidence these issues were even grappled with. That's frustrating as an advertiser, that it seems like they just started with "how do we have fewer headaches?"
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think you severely underestimate what constitutes classifying something as political. You are over-thinking this. Just filtering obvious political stuff would be a massive help: - Mentions of politicians - Key words: Liberal, Conservative, Right-wing, etc etc - Material re-shared from political parties/ candidates/ movements. Just that would be a giant help. Allowing users to set their own filters would be a mass…
This has ethical reprecussions on the news ecosystem because whichever keywords/mentions that Facebook dictates as political will be targeted by news organizations to avoid. These organizations will strip normal news of any political connotations which is frightening because the news, although mostly a pile of noise today, is supposed to have signals to keep democracies in line by design.
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#434A relatively non-partisan person who likes a news article about gun rights gets pushed news and pages that promote more conservative viewpoints, and those pages lead to fringe ideas, conspiracy theories, and the groups that promote those ideas.
Trump/Biden ads seem less problematic than memes about vigilante justice against minorities that float around FB.
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is political content? Is news about the protests political? Is a statement by the president? Is a new law going in to effect political? Is someone commenting about wearing masks political? > Text classification is a thing, and there are many other techniques, so it seems possible to recognize political content with some reasonable level of accuracy and show me a lot less of that. I think you severely underestima…
> I think you severely underestimate what constitutes classifying something as political. You are over-thinking this. Just filtering obvious political stuff would be a massive help: - Mentions of politicians - Key words: Liberal, Conservative, Right-wing, etc etc - Material re-shared from political parties/ candidates/ movements. Just that would be a giant help. Allowing users to set their own filters would be a mass…
Political candidates also share names with other people. Name based filtering can silence unrelated people. See how well our no fly lists are at targeting people who just happen to have the wrong name.
For every problem, there is a simple solution that is wrong. Getting things right is often not simple.
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is political content? Is news about the protests political? Is a statement by the president? Is a new law going in to effect political? Is someone commenting about wearing masks political? > Text classification is a thing, and there are many other techniques, so it seems possible to recognize political content with some reasonable level of accuracy and show me a lot less of that. I think you severely underestima…
> I think you severely underestimate what constitutes classifying something as political. You are over-thinking this. Just filtering obvious political stuff would be a massive help: - Mentions of politicians - Key words: Liberal, Conservative, Right-wing, etc etc - Material re-shared from political parties/ candidates/ movements. Just that would be a giant help. Allowing users to set their own filters would be a mass…
What about new terms like kraken ?
In case of online content moderation think in terms of signal/noise and context.
The same thing is benign or malicious based on the context It finds itself in.
Your filter list assumes a static context - your particular imagining of context in this case.
Obviously What’s noise for you is signal/hurtful to someone else.
Run this over N sub groups of subscribers and you have an impossible problem.
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sure, but there's really no harm voting if you really are completely ignorant -- you and the people like you will just be noise in the final tally. But most people aren't completely ignorant, and the return on going deeper in the political process isn't that great if all you're trying to do is decide how to fill out your ballot. Largely speaking pretty much everyone sponsored by a major party is plenty qualified on p…
First of all, I don't think that forms a very good argument for the idea that "everyone should vote".
Second, that's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that you are completely ignorant but harbor misconceptions that make you susceptible to useless or destructive populism, which creates an incentive for opportunist politicians to base their outward facing platforms on that, allowing them to not so clearly and visibly create real opportunities only for themselves.
> But most people aren't completely ignorant, and the return on going deeper in the political process isn't that great if all you're trying to do is decide how to fill out your ballot.
The problem of how to fill out your ballot is not removed from its consequences. If all you want to do is put a name on a ballot, again, please refrain from voting. If you are at all concerned with what your choice entails other than having filled out the ballot, I sincerely believe that you owe it to yourself and everyone else to be informed and to inform.
The idea that politics isn't for everyone (but that voting somehow is) scares me. That politics might not being your "thing" is only true of hermits that have effectively removed themselves from society. For everyone else, it is your thing. What might not be your thing is caring about it, which I think is sad for the same reason someone not caring about their health is.
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#438I'd also love a feature that lets me block non-advertising political content. A lot of people like to use Facebook as a political soapbox. That's not what I want out of it. I want to stay connected to people, hear updates, socialize, etc. Some people push it so far that the solution of unfriending them is easy. But not everybody is so egregious that I want the nuclear option. (For example, relatives who are vocal abo…
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#439I'd also love a feature that lets me block non-advertising political content. A lot of people like to use Facebook as a political soapbox. That's not what I want out of it. I want to stay connected to people, hear updates, socialize, etc. Some people push it so far that the solution of unfriending them is easy. But not everybody is so egregious that I want the nuclear option. (For example, relatives who are vocal abo…
What is political content? Is news about the protests political? Is a statement by the president? Is a new law going in to effect political? Is someone commenting about wearing masks political? > Text classification is a thing, and there are many other techniques, so it seems possible to recognize political content with some reasonable level of accuracy and show me a lot less of that. I think you severely underestima…
Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>But political advertising doesn't equal hate speech. It often does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1... >another person's deeply felt, legitimate political viewpoint I don't think "people with dark skin are subhuman" should be treated as a legitimate political viewpoint.
You can ban hate speech and leave political advertising unbanned.
Obviously any political advertising that is also hate speech remains banned.