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

Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 270 posts

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#111

Post by bbrree66 »

cm2187 wrote: post #100
ogre_codes wrote: post #18

This just seems like too little, too late. Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. If they wanted to seriously affect this, they would prevent posts from spreading to tens of thousands/ millions of people without being vetted.

Vetted by who? Based on the political opinions of some manager somewhere in California?

This is the real question :) Of course it will be by some far left leaning person. Zuckerberg said they have content moderation and consult with many many groups and the interviewer asked for ONE example of a conservative group they consult with, he had no answer.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#112

Post by belorn »

cm2187 wrote: post #100
ogre_codes wrote: post #18

This just seems like too little, too late. Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. If they wanted to seriously affect this, they would prevent posts from spreading to tens of thousands/ millions of people without being vetted.

Vetted by who? Based on the political opinions of some manager somewhere in California?

The only democratic way to have a vetting system for political messages would be to have an transparent government institute that are responsible to the public, and it seems to me then that we have just reinvented the censor bureau of the past.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#113

Post by UncleMeat »

hnracer wrote: post #110
UncleMeat wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific people were both “very fine” and marching with Unite the Right? Trump said “both sides” so there must have been some good people on both sides. But I’ve seen their live-streams. The Unite the Right crowd was loudly and consistently shouting racial slurs and calling for racial violence. A very fine person would walk away upon hearing that. If people honestly supported history they would have asked the hi…

There were lots of people protesting on that day in support of the statue that had nothing to do with the neo-nazis and white supremacists, in exactly the same way that there were lots of people protesting against the statue who were are not affiliated with antifa. Those are the people that Trump was presumably referring to, given that he explicitly said he was not talking about white supremacists (whom he condemned…

I would expect somebody who has "nothing to do with neo-nazis" to say "wow, I've made a huge mistake" and leave the first time they hear somebody they are marching next to shout "gas the k--es, race war now". Who specifically are these hypothetical good people?

Unlike you, I do believe that every counterprotestor was associated with antifa. It was an antifascist counterprotest. That is antifa.

Support for the Lee statue has never been seriously about history because the supporters of keeping it up never asked historians. I'm serious. UVA is an excellent history program. They could have asked the history faculty to decide. It wouldn't have gone in their favor.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#114

Post by rsynnott »

ogre_codes wrote: post #18

This just seems like too little, too late. Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. If they wanted to seriously affect this, they would prevent posts from spreading to tens of thousands/ millions of people without being vetted.

> they would prevent posts from spreading to tens of thousands/ millions of people without being vetted.

But _the precious engagement_!

Viral nonsense is, unfortunately, effectively Facebook's business model, so they're unlikely to do much about it.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#115

Post by GavinMcG »

bbrree66 wrote: post #111
cm2187 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vetted by who? Based on the political opinions of some manager somewhere in California?

This is the real question :) Of course it will be by some far left leaning person. Zuckerberg said they have content moderation and consult with many many groups and the interviewer asked for ONE example of a conservative group they consult with, he had no answer.

Not intended to derail this, but could someone point to/recommend conservative groups who a) have denounced white supremacy, and b) are reasonably data- or analytically-driven?

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#116

Post by rsynnott »

tim333 wrote: post #88
ogre_codes wrote: post #18

This just seems like too little, too late. Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. If they wanted to seriously affect this, they would prevent posts from spreading to tens of thousands/ millions of people without being vetted.

Or just a button for 'this is fake news' or some such. Once say 10 people click that they stop it spreading. Bit like the flagging system on HN.

This is very exploitable, and would probably remove all mainstream reporting from the site (whereas the viral spam rubbish would just create more domains to evade the flags).

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#118

Post by bbrree66 »

hogFeast wrote: post #52
IanDrake wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. These harmful memes are rotting the minds of young voters. We need to have Facebook eliminate them. Later when people send them via email, we'll need Google, Microsoft, and Apple make sure our email is vetted by their censors. Then we'll need snail mail censors, and speech censors. It's like people on HN can't even step back and really think about what they're saying.

Exactly. Glad to hear someone has understood. Eliminate all sources of untruth in society. Truth will prevail.

Yikes.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#119

Post by lettergram »

ogre_codes wrote: post #18

This just seems like too little, too late. Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources. If they wanted to seriously affect this, they would prevent posts from spreading to tens of thousands/ millions of people without being vetted.

> Much of the problems I see aren't advertising in the traditional sense, but viral content from sketchy sources.

Define a credible source? We know for a fact all the major news outlets edit photos, often don’t use their own reporters, write sensational articles (actively stretching facts).

No, I don’t think we can say what is a “sketchy” source. Unless we start wanting Facebook to moderate truth (or just accept the current propaganda machines as truth).

These statements remind me of school. I used to be told not to use Wikipedia and do all my searches in Altavista or Ask Jeeves. I was told this for years, even after Google came out. I think it’s short sighted to try and suppress. Instead we should teach or add a warning (at best) saying “unverified”.

Re: Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

#120

Post by GavinMcG »

hnracer wrote: post #80
srtjstjsj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you consider the "hoax" in "very fine people hoax". Do you disagree with this analysis (linked below) which claims that the "only very fine non-white-nationalist people" Trump were either (a) at a different activity from the one Trump claimed they were doing, or (b) people who weren't there but Trump thought were there. That analysis puts Trump at best misinformed or confused, if not supportive of th…

Because about ten seconds later in the same speech he says he unequivocally condemns white supremacists. But the media (and the democrats in their advertising) cuts off that part of the speech, leaving a false impression in people's minds. This alone is evidence that he wasn't calling white supremacists fine people. Further, it was a large protest over a statue with thousands of people over a whole day, do you think…

But he doesn't actually condemn neo-Nazis and white supremacists! He makes the offhand comment that they should be condemned, but doesn't shut them down when he knows he has their ear.

It's the same with the Proud Boys comment at the debate. He tells them to stand by and stand down, then the next day says he doesn't know who they are. We all know he's lying - and most of all the Proud Boys, who see the wink and the nod behind the denial, which is just to get the lugenpresse off his back.

Post reply on HN