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

Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#181

Post by throwaway_jobs »

camillomiller wrote: post #84
throwaway_jobs wrote: post #62

It seems the pandemic and unemployment is finally causing voodoo economics (trickle down economics) to reverse course and perhaps cause trickle up economics, where the multi-billion dollar corporations and rich alike will begin to feel the pinch of poverty on a massive scale trickle up. Unfortunately while taxpayers got their $1,200 Checks they were robbed blind of over $4T to the FED which went directly to stabilize…

I'm frankly flabbergasted by what's going on with the markets. If anyone thought stocks were still somehow a projection of reality and an indicator of expectations on the future of a company's performance, well, that's clearly not the case anymore. I am really scared that a real devastating collapse is still looming, but I frankly have no clue of when that could happen and what could actually trigger it.

> I am really scared that a real devastating collapse is still looming,

Eventually it will because businesses will never recover without consumers recovering. That said I don’t think it’s looming...again congress gave over $4T to the FED to stabilize the market. To put that runway in perspective consider how in 2008 we were on the brink of a total financial collapse, yet with only $1.6T used to stabilize the banks the financial collapse was turned into the longest bull market in history (over a decade) and record high markets. We are talking 2.5x that bailout this time around.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#182

Post by solarwind »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #150
wayne_skylar wrote: post #109

I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact what they do is the exact opposite. When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair. By prioritizing cert…

American free speech is a legal concept from the late 1700s, before germ theory, trains, antibiotics, flight, or even the Civil War to end slavery. Free speech is a concept from the time where a majority of US power was in the hands of slaveholders...when "speech" meant what your mouth or printing press could produce. Can we really expect this antiquated legal concept to neatly interact with technology from 2020? Did…

Your argument is ad hominem, a logical fallacy where one attacks the character or motive of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

Furthermore, free speech is a natural human right, to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being, not an Americentrist historical accident.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#183

Post by _bxg1 »

bhupy wrote: post #145
_bxg1 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook and the like have directly driven a huge increase in worldwide division and polarization. And faced with that fact they've continued their course full-steam-ahead. I don't know of any moral framework where that isn't a negative for society. Some on the economic-right might argue it isn't Facebook's problem to worry about because something something The Market. But even they wouldn't say the full picture is a…

I really encourage you to try and construct the strongest counter-argument to yourself so that you might at least be able to empathize with why someone might be sympathetic to Facebook's current stances without jumping to the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil. Remember that everyone is "the good guy" in their own story. The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says th…

> the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil

> The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself

I wasn't making any such grand claims. I intentionally scoped my argument to "Facebook has increased division in the world" and "increased division is bad", in an effort to keep it as non-subjective as possible.

> In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization?

I didn't have to look very far; Facebook did the study itself, internally, and executives directly chose to ignore it: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#184

Post by danans »

tomp wrote: post #103
tzs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech. The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information p…

You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. Twitter deleting bots claiming that Obama was born in Africa? Fine. Twitter tagging Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law as "promoting violence against speci…

> Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law

What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite?

And under what statute is the use of violence against those protesters sanctioned by the law?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#185

Post by swebs »

salimmadjd wrote: post #108

Am I the only person who has a problem with this headline, "Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing" am I overreacting here or others feel the same? For me at the face of it's not incorrect, but it feels to me a certain deliberate wordsmithing is used to create a sense of growing momentum. What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue. I do understand FB will not pro…

I think the 2016 election broke the NY Times. They shifted from a mostly neutral, reputable news source to quasi-propaganda fairly quickly.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#186

Post by adamsea »

swebs wrote: post #185
salimmadjd wrote: post #108

Am I the only person who has a problem with this headline, "Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing" am I overreacting here or others feel the same? For me at the face of it's not incorrect, but it feels to me a certain deliberate wordsmithing is used to create a sense of growing momentum. What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue. I do understand FB will not pro…

I think the 2016 election broke the NY Times. They shifted from a mostly neutral, reputable news source to quasi-propaganda fairly quickly.

What exactly is the propaganda part? Can you provide a specific example, so folks have something concrete to agree or disagree with?

And, do you mean with their news reporting, as opposed to their editorials?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#187

Post by reaperducer »

salimmadjd wrote: post #108

Am I the only person who has a problem with this headline, "Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing" am I overreacting here or others feel the same? For me at the face of it's not incorrect, but it feels to me a certain deliberate wordsmithing is used to create a sense of growing momentum. What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue. I do understand FB will not pro…

What we don't know if these advertisers represent 1%, more or less than x% of Facebook's ad revenue.

Does it matter?

If two advertisers quit on Monday, and four more quit on Tuesday, and six more quit on Wednesday, that is growing momentum.

Is there a codified percentage of revenue where a newspaper is suddenly allowed (by Facebook?) to write about things? Can you provide a link?

HN-types like to jump on the mass media for not noticing trends soon enough. Then they jump on the mass media for noticing trends too soon. Make up your hive mind.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#188

Post by [deleted] »

onion2k wrote: post #167
fennecfoxen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of whether people have empathy. It's a question of whether they're going to fire you from your job or boycott your business if you aren't actively celebrate the cause de jure in the approved manner.

That's nonsense. No one is going to be fired and no one is going to be boycotted for not joining in. People might be fired for being against BLM, but that's only right. If you get up and say a group of oppressed people should continue to be oppressed then you absolutely should be fired.

[deleted]

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#189

Post by reaperducer »

adamsea wrote: post #186
swebs wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 2016 election broke the NY Times. They shifted from a mostly neutral, reputable news source to quasi-propaganda fairly quickly.

What exactly is the propaganda part? Can you provide a specific example, so folks have something concrete to agree or disagree with? And, do you mean with their news reporting, as opposed to their editorials?

Most people, including people on HN, don't grok that there's a difference between news and editorials. Especially with everything getting mashed together in endless digital news scrolling apps.

2020: If it's something they agree with, it's news. If there's something they disagree with, it's propaganda.

It's not entirely new, though. When I worked in television news years ago, the average person didn't know the difference between the news and the entertainment programs. I was introduced to this one day standing in the supermarket checkout line and two women were talking about something they saw "on the news." They were talking about the Maury Povich Show.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#190

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #175
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it wants but when it comes to FB making decisions about free speech we need to force them into submission? If you don't like it, move to another platform, isn't that what you guys always say? :)

the person you responded too didn't mention anything about twitter and you seem to be chasing straw men.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy and the double standard.

Twitter has been in the news cycle for censoring/manipulating tweets of Trump. On HN I see a lot of people defending this decision by noting they are a private company and you can switch social media services if you want.

It seems you cannot switch services, the mob will always find you and push their "ethics" and "facts" onto you.

Post reply on HN