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

131–140 of 270 posts

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

#131

Post by mc32 »

lettergram wrote: post #119
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…

This can’t be stressed enough. It used to be footage or images were verified or were from a photo or video journalist on the ground. Now they use recycled footage and images either through laziness, incompetence or maliciousness to drive a narrative. This is from “reputable” networks.

And not to lessen the complaint about excessive use of force by police, but very often the context preceding a confrontation is deliberately omitted to reframe an interaction with a suspect. This reframing has damaging consequences in many affected areas of concern.

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

#132

Post by untog »

castratikron wrote: post #130

What if they made all social media read-only for a day or two preceding the election? Analogous to radio silence. Then it would be impossible for anyone to post misinformation about where to vote or other things that are designed to change the result of an election.

I imagine that would be hugely disruptive to people’s lives, given how central social media is these days.

Besides, you’d presumably only do this to US users. So if someone wanted to spread some piece of viral misinformation they’d just post it under a non-US user and promote it.

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

#133

Post by xadhominemx »

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.

What are you talking about? The Daily Caller is one of Facebook’s official fact checker partners: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/facebooks-fact-c...

And the top performing content on Facebook is dominated by right wing media figures: https://mobile.twitter.com/FacebooksTop10

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

#134

Post by hnracer »

UncleMeat wrote: post #113
hnracer wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sta…

I would also expect somebody to not march alongside neo-marxists and self-professed communists (antifa) with a history of violent extremism (according to the FBI director Wray) but there you go.

> Support for the Lee statue has never been seriously about history

This is irrelevant to the question of whether there were non-white supremacists in attendance. What matters as to people's motives is whether people think that it's about history, which many ordinary people do.

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

#135

Post by sawjet »

GavinMcG wrote: post #115
bbrree66 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you automatically presume any conservative group is white supremacists by default?

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

#136

Post by schwinn140 »

Simple solutions:

* Block all political ads all the time.

* Require all political parties, and their PACS, to register as a known Advertiser account within the system. Any time an ad runs, and regardless of the source, the associated party will be heavily penalized with a removal of their non-paid content.

There needs to be ramifications for their abuse of the platform. Being that Facebook can't charge them a fine, penalizing their organic exposure is the only thing that they can hold against them.

Multiple offenses will result in longer and longer periods of their content being "muted".

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

#137

Post by teddyh »

hogFeast wrote: post #41
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.

Yes, it is so simple. News should only come from approved sources. Once the veracity has been checked by a Facebook employee, it is then empirically true or false. I don't know why people in the 21st century cannot understand that all statements are true or false, and that we can place authority for determining truth with companies with known, trusted political allegiances. For example, I have read a lot about health…

Sarcasm lacking a “/s” sarcasm tag is risky. On deeply divided issues, where both sides demonize the other and is willing to think the worst of anyone at a drop of a hat, unmarked sarcasm is in effect asking to be knocked down.

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

#138

Post by mentos »

KiranRao0 wrote: post #27

I would love if Facebook could simply remove all political ads. The problem then becomes what classifies as political ad. This can be very obvious (vote for president = political, buy cereal = not political), but it can also be far less obvious. For example, would an ad for in support of an oil pipeline be considered a political ad? What if it's in support for an outcome of a referendum? Or an Ad for a charity? What…

The same way the pandemic opened up the opportunity for remote work, I'd love to see Facebook _experiment_ with maybe 6 months of no political ads and see what emerges in its place.

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

#139

Post by netcan »

Honestly, I've been quite shocked over the last 5 years or so at Zuck's take on political and politically adjacent politics. I get that they're of the "money at any cost" ethic, but a lot of decisions (or lack thereof) have been downright imprudent.

These last minute decisions are likely reactive to something, whether or not it's actually reactive to the debate comment that this writer thinks triggered it. My (uneducated) guess is that its more related to stuff happening on the platform itself.

In any case, the creepiness of fb just keeps rising. Maybe they'll end up exploding the whole thing.

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

#140

Post by lanevorockz »

schwinn140 wrote: post #136

Simple solutions: * Block all political ads all the time. * Require all political parties, and their PACS, to register as a known Advertiser account within the system. Any time an ad runs, and regardless of the source, the associated party will be heavily penalized with a removal of their non-paid content. There needs to be ramifications for their abuse of the platform. Being that Facebook can't charge them a fine, p…

Only if they wanted a fair balance, I think Facebook is just aiming to under advertise Conservatives. There is no secret that about 95% of all donations from Silicon Valley goes to Democrats. It won't take too long until the whole world is a mirror of California.
Post reply on HN