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

271–280 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#271

Post by dingdingdang »

skewart wrote: post #123
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’s more, the NY Times has a strong business interest in convincing advertisers not to advertise on Facebook. I’m a bit skeptical of anything they publish these days about Facebook, Google, and other companies that could potentially threaten their access to clicks, just given their financial incentives to weaken these companies as much as possible.

And not only is that strong business interest, its also mixed with strong political agenda that's pushed on Facebook despite recent pointers* that FB internally moderates in favour of Democrats already.

* https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/12756067933271736...

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#272

Post by methehack »

_curious_ wrote: post #199
methehack wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you prefer "Ad Boycott of Facebook Kind of Growing"? Or "Ad Boycott of Facebook Growing Slowly"? Or "Ad Boycott of Facebook: The Details" It is growing, the details are accurate in the article, and I can't think of a headline that has zero editorial information in it. If they don't run any story, then they risk the opposite criticism: why didn't you tell us?! You should worry more about the media that philosophica…

"why didn't you tell us?!" Do you actually think anyone would notice if the Times did not publish this article? Couldn't the same thing then be said about any MSM publisher relating to all topics/content? "You should worry more about the media that philosophically rejects the notion of objective reality. " And...there is no such thing as objectivity in media, never was or will be. The act of deciding what stories to…

Yes, humans are biased. Sigh/Yawn. Still, there is a world of difference between trying to be objective and not trying to be objective at all. I think, generally, the Times is trying a lot more than most organizations and I respect that. Just because humans are biased doesn't mean all journalism is equally biased.

And yes, story selection is editorializing. Sigh/Yawn. I think choosing to run this story is a legitimate editorial decision as I believe enough people care about it -- in fact, I care about it.

I think there's only a case of bad journalism here if you catch the Time in a misrepresentation. The existence of the story is not, in itself, a misrepresentation.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#273

Post by bavell »

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…

I find it so funny how people think "freedom of speech" protects them from private enterprises. The first amendment protects your right to freedom of speech from the GOVERNMENT, and only the government. "Congress shall make no law..."

Their algorithm is not interfering with your free speech because you have no right to free speech on THEIR platform. Facebook can manipulate you, shame you, ban you, etc. from their platform and you have (practically) no recourse. They don't owe you anything, you chose to use their service and abide by their rules. No one is forcing you to use them or any platform (whether or not you feel social pressure to do so is another matter). I choose not to engage with most social media and am much happier for it.

All that said, I DO think some social media platforms have overstepped their Section 230 protections and are dipping their toes into publisher territory. They want their cake and to eat it too.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#274

Post by bavell »

lwb wrote: post #201
tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

I am. Morale is good, took a minor hiccup recently but has pretty much recovered by now. When I tell everyday folk that I work for Facebook, the reaction is usually, "wow, cool!" and if they're tech minded, they might ask a few questions about the tech stack we use. Most people at Facebook believe that FB is good for the world, Zuck is a good leader, and that we are working to address dubious ethical decisions made i…

For better or worse, this pretty much confirms what I expected.

"The Kool-aid here sure tastes great!"

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#275

Post by ardy42 »

esperent wrote: post #148
erikw wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too am curious about the internal motivations of people who work for Facebook. Something I've noticed about myself is that I would be okay with working for a US defense contractor, ie a company which makes machines that literally kill people, yet I could not picture myself working at Facebook. I struggle to square this morally, because I also believe that defense contractors have a greater net negative impact on so…

> I would be okay with working for a US defense contractor, ie a company which makes machines that literally kill people The thought of working for a company like this makes me feel physically ill. Soldiers can at least feel like they are working to defend a country they believe in. Weapons companies will sell killing machines to anyone with money. Few things in the world make me feel the visceral disgust that these…

> The thought of working for a company like this makes me feel physically ill. Soldiers can at least feel like they are working to defend a country they believe in. Weapons companies will sell killing machines to anyone with money. Few things in the world make me feel the visceral disgust that these companies engender.

Not really. Even if I had the money, I don't think I would be allowed to buy a fully-armed F-16.

Even (foreign) governments typically have to get their purchases approved for export, and that approval is not automatic (e.g. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/denmark-suspends-saudi-we...).

IMHO, there can be little moral distinction between being a soldier and a weapons maker. If it's OK to be a soldier to defend a country you believe in, then it's OK to make weapons to allow those soldiers to destroy enemy forces as effectively as possible. If the former is OK, but the latter is somehow not, then you're basically condemning your soldiers to defeat and possibly unnecessary death.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#276

Post by dingaling »

reaperducer wrote: post #187
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 med…

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

Unless of course 10 joined on Thursday. Which the article carefully avoids investigating.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#277

Post by ykevinator »

ingsoc79 wrote: post #203
adamsea wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

While the NYT has always had its share of bias claims, since Trump's election it appears that even the facade of balanced reporting is taking a back seat to their editorial agenda. You have editorialized headlines[1] that incorporate common liberal phrases to invoke outrage. Other "How to Raise an Anti-Racist Kid" Any story that mentions Trump will have a negative headline, even mundane stories about disaster declara…

I am gambling you will vote for trump

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#278

Post by ykevinator »

klyrs wrote: post #143
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…

Facebook has a right to free speech. They can moderate and curate content on their site. Their commitment to your free speech is "free as in beer" -- as in, you're giving them content and they don't pay you a dime for it.

Agreed, and companies are free to boycott

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#279

Post by ecmascript »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #28
ecmascript wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe.

> It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Isn't that expressing free speech? Or do you believe those headers have been coerced, and they feel forced to post one? I'm dubious that's the case, and I doubt it'll affect the frameworks future success whether they post one or not.

> Isn't that expressing free speech?

Sure it's free speech but it is also a mob mentality and a mob speak. What is the relevance for a javascript framework used world-wide to spam a specific american politics?

Seriously, most european countries have a very small minority that is black and basically very little racism. No police brutality against any group etc. What is the relevance for us?

What is the relevance for let's say an african programmer who live in a place where there basically aren't any whites?

What is the relevance for an Chinese person living in a smaller city in which basically never meets any other race than asians?

This kind of thinking that's coming from american movements is that the entire world depends on what the situation is in america. I don't really know what it's like to be either black or white in america and I don't really care either. I'm just getting pissed off by the virtue signaling bullshit and the agenda to make every country like america.

I have ended every subscription service that panders to BLM, I stopped using Vue because of it. American politics rarely should impact technologies in my opinion, only when it is about said technology.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#280

Post by btilly »

gms wrote: post #211
btilly wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not just better at noticing it. It really is more slanted. Journalism 20-30 years ago was mostly funded on a subscription model. In this model they work hard to maintain their reputation, so that people will trust them as an accurate source of news. Journalism today is mostly funded per click. Which means that the most important thing is a headline that grabs people's attention and causes them to click. The i…

The NYT operates on an online subscription model, no?

They do, and they therefore have an incentive to do better than other news organizations. But the general media landscape has become more biased and less reliable. Furthermore the fact that the public expects news to be delivered more quickly means that they have less room than they used to to hold a story for fact checking.

The result is that the NYT today is better than CNN is today, but they do not meet the same standard that they did 25 years ago. In fact they might not be better today than CNN was 25 years ago.

Post reply on HN