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

281–290 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#281

Post by nisuni »

bavell wrote: post #273
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 pla…

The First Amendment, as you correctly point out, protects freedom of speech in certain cases that are not really relevant here.

However, people might support a higher standard for freedom of speech, and might wish businesses also concur in protecting it.

This is not in the law, but very often people have moral standards that are stricter than the law.

Therefore, I don’t see any contradiction here.

Myself, I full acknowledge that Facebook is not bound to grant freedom of speech to its users by the First Amendment, but I still wish it did so.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#282

Post by [deleted] »

dingaling wrote: post #276
reaperducer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#283

Post by beepbop4441 »

dingaling wrote: post #276
reaperducer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article isn’t analyzing net advertisers, it doesn’t matter if 10 new ones join that’s not relevant to the statement that the number leaving is increasing.

“carefully avoids investigating” give me a break

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#284

Post by bryan_w »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #180
pesenti wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an immigrant in the US. My family uses FB products (FB App, WhatsApp, Portal) to stay in touch across the world. It really improves our lives. It doesn't mean I believe everything that's done on our products is good for the world, but I do believe the good outweighs the bad by a wide margin. A big part of my job is to make sure that this margin increases.

I really don't see how by a wide margin Facebook products can be a net positive to the world. They are a net NEGATIVE and probably by a huge margin (if you could quantify it, probably destroying more lives than a lot of defence contractors). Facebook: - Disrupt democracy all over the world,creating divisive political lines between us. - Destroys the mental health of millions of teenagers that spend hours on Instagram…

You have to understand that the average FB user's experience is

- log on

- see pics of niece/family

- message their buddy about that thing this weekend

- see funny cat video

- log off

To that person, FB provided a lot of value with none of the downsides you're talking about. I don't think I'm friends with a single person who even follows DT's page, so this whole ordeal means nothing to them.

Could people communicate via other websites? Sure, but it's easy enough to just use FB.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#285

Post by _curious_ »

methehack wrote: post #272
_curious_ wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 legitimat…

Cool. I care about to also, though were this story published elsewhere never would I think 'gee why didn't the Times cover this?' Or the Journal, or the Chronicle, etc. - guess I am privileged enough to have bigger concerns.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#286

Post by bhupy »

danans wrote: post #266
bhupy wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> POTUS is a public official and in this incident was speaking in his role as a public official with the power to use force, and a concrete threat against a concrete target. Yes, but that use of force is not lawless. Police use of force against vandalism is currently legal. Calling for that is also legal, because it fails the "lawless" portion of the "imminent lawless action" test. Similarly, if POTUS calls for war a…

> Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be. Calling for war against a foreign adversary, yes. But for violence against domestic protesters - not clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects that, regardless of whether the violence is lawful, and to what degree it is lawful. The use of violence by public officials i…

> The administration would like to claim they have the option of the Insurrection Act, which will again have to be tested in courts. Calling protests insurrection, even those that commit vandalism, is false on its face.

We're not talking about classifying anything as "insurrection" here.

Given the context of the tweet in question, we are strictly talking about vandalism and trespassing, and we're talking about classifying it as "obstruction of the law", which is explicitly carved out in the text of the Insurrection Act. I'm not sure if you can make a strong case that vandalism and trespassing are NOT an obstruction of the law. If a mid-20th century Arkansas school refusing to desegregate can be considered an obstruction of the law, so too can vandalism/trespassing.

The POTUS declaring the intent to call on the legislature to approve the Insurrection Act against those that are objectively obstructing the law is protected by the Constitution, and you'd have to really stretch yourself to suggest that this fails the imminent lawless action test.

And this is also all assuming that POTUS is talking about using the military. He could also be talking about just calling on the police force to just enforce the existing laws. The statement is vague enough that it's legal on its face, but even in the non-charitable interpretation pretty clearly fails the Brandenburg test.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#288

Post by 0xy »

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…

Most people aren't hyper-partisan ideologues that boycott companies based on their political censorship policies, that's why.

Also, by boycotting FB as a developer you're reducing your earning potential considering FB is the top of the compensation pile.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#289

Post by 0xy »

bradlys wrote: post #192
rainyMammoth wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a couple. The answer is simple: Money. Facebook pays way above what other tech companies pay (a 6 year of experience senior engineer in Menlo Park can easily make 600k/year). There is also a sense of pride coming from back in the days when Facebook was still seen as a very exclusive and wonderful place to work at.

600k/yr seems a bit far fetched for six years of experience. levels.fyi is one source that I think would contradict the easiness of that goal. Facebook pays in line with what other top big public tech companies pay. You could go to Google or Netflix and expect similar comp.

It is far fetched, but Google and Netflix cannot match FB. FB beats Google at every level, on average.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#290

Post by 0xy »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #180
pesenti wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an immigrant in the US. My family uses FB products (FB App, WhatsApp, Portal) to stay in touch across the world. It really improves our lives. It doesn't mean I believe everything that's done on our products is good for the world, but I do believe the good outweighs the bad by a wide margin. A big part of my job is to make sure that this margin increases.

I really don't see how by a wide margin Facebook products can be a net positive to the world. They are a net NEGATIVE and probably by a huge margin (if you could quantify it, probably destroying more lives than a lot of defence contractors). Facebook: - Disrupt democracy all over the world,creating divisive political lines between us. - Destroys the mental health of millions of teenagers that spend hours on Instagram…

I'd rather people get their political news from other people on Facebook or WhatsApp groups than highly corrupt hyper-partisan news organizations that serve the interests of their billionaire founders exclusively.

Mainstream media has done more to disrupt democracy than Facebook. Whether it's:

- Lying about Iraq WMDs that eventually lead to tens of thousands of casualties (New York Times)

- Lying about Russian hacks of critical US infrastructure (Washington Post)

- Lying about the standards of immigration facilities (AP)

- Lying about innocent victims of assault during the riots (NPR)

- Threatening to ruin someones life through doxxing over political GIFs (CNN).

Post reply on HN