Live data from Hacker News

Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

nytimes.com

191–200 of 270 posts

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

#191
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

He didn't even know who the Proud Boys were during the debate. It's even disputable that they're white supremacists, their leader is Hispanic and they proclaim the superiority of western culture not the white race.

The next day Trump said something like "I don't know who they are, but I condemn them", you can't get more clear than that but of course this doesn't get coverage in the media.

Nevermind the numerous times prior where he has explicitly condemned white supremacy and even designated the KKK as a terrorist organization. It's all ignored in the left wing echo chamber.

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

#192
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not quite 95% all around, here are the top ones with the percentage of all their employees' contributions to the Democrat party: Netflix = 98% Nvidia = 93% Adobe = 93% IBM = 90% Salesforce = 89% Google = 88% Microsoft = 85% Apple = 84% Paypal = 84% Cisco = 80% Amazon = 77% Facebook = 77% Intel = 68% Broadcom = 68% Oracle = 67% Texas Instruments = 60% Qualcomm = 50% Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/most-li…

Surprising it’s the Dems in Congress that want to break up tech then. I guess money isn’t everything.

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

#193

I came across this article today and actually thought it as true for a couple minutes. https://babylonbee.com/news/facebook-will-now-add-warnings-t... I just found that telling on how bad the current state of affairs has gotten.

Babylon Bee is satire, like The Onion but with a right wing bias. Edit: If you're going to downvote please explain why. What I said is factually correct.

Reasons:

1. The person appears to know it's satire already. 2. What difference does it make that it has a "right wing" bias? 3. To me it looks like it's just dismissing the commentary by OP because it includes a link to a "right-wing bias" source.

4. This is precisely what's wrong with any sort of social-media policing by government or private entities. Your post is factually correct. But just as in-person conversations have non-verbal communication, likewise text has it's own subtle and implied meanings that it conveys.

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

#194
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite 95% all around, here are the top ones with the percentage of all their employees' contributions to the Democrat party: Netflix = 98% Nvidia = 93% Adobe = 93% IBM = 90% Salesforce = 89% Google = 88% Microsoft = 85% Apple = 84% Paypal = 84% Cisco = 80% Amazon = 77% Facebook = 77% Intel = 68% Broadcom = 68% Oracle = 67% Texas Instruments = 60% Qualcomm = 50% Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/02/most-li…

Surprising it’s the Dems in Congress that want to break up tech then. I guess money isn’t everything.

I thought it was more being driven/pushed by conservatives?

Edit. Wow, this conversation is seriously devolved when a simple question gets downvoted.

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

#195
Am I missing something or has a controversy been created out of nearly thin air by random politicized factors here? Facebook may be a gigantic media company with a whole social component, but it's still in many ways (especially in terms of advertising) mostly another media company with lots of eyeballs, fundamentally like so many media companies that have existed for a very long time.

Since political ads have been a part of media placement since (a very damn long time ago), what justification beyond hand wavey "it's a social danger" arguments can some of you favoring this state for such a ban or the feeling of having to pursue it?

It almost seems as if this only started being a supposed problem since the unpopular-among-educated-liberal-types Trump won an election. Prior to that I recall much less mention of anyone worrying too much about political ads on social media (my memory might be faulty on that though). So, is it a general thing or are we talking about many people now thinking there's a problem mainly because someone they happen to dislike took advantage of social media to win a major election?

Also worth noting:

1. Much of the really rabid fake news type content on platforms like Facebook doesn't even come from paid in-platform ads. It's sourced and virally spread from people (or fake accounts in many cases) posting it more or less organically, albeit in a highly coordinated way sometimes.

2. The whole argument of Russia supposedly using Facebook to "influence" the 2016 election has yet to be in any way credibly substantiated and has gone nowhere so far. Or does anyone have a piece of concrete evidence arguing the opposite to put forth?

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I can't bring to mind any that have denounced white supremacy. Which is why I'm asking.

Does this work for you? https://streamable.com/sr9o2s Edit: People on this forum need to stop being so cultish. Downvoting this doesn’t change the reality that it directly kills your narrative.

No, though it's a better reply to my comment elsewhere in the thread where I said Trump doesn't actually condemn white supremacy.

The handful of examples in the video that are post-Charlottesville are a nice start, but they've clearly ended up being lip service. He says "I condemn white supremacy" and then goes back to race-baiting at his rally just days ago. [0]

Also, it doesn't kill the narrative. It's entirely consistent with the narrative that Trump lies when it's convenient.

[0] https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1311481175689568256?s=20

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

He didn't even know who the Proud Boys were during the debate. It's even disputable that they're white supremacists, their leader is Hispanic and they proclaim the superiority of western culture not the white race. The next day Trump said something like "I don't know who they are, but I condemn them", you can't get more clear than that but of course this doesn't get coverage in the media. Nevermind the numerous times…

It's not ignored – his claim not to know who they are made the news – it's just treated the same as most everything else that Trump says: facile and not based in reality, if not an outright lie.

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

#199

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…

There is a very powerful dynamic going on between those well intentioned but perhaps too optimistic that we can or should try to protect everyone from bad ideas.

That debate is nothing new and in the mean time as we wait and see how these forces play out the correct answer for any person is to stop wanting and waiting for the powers that be to save us from ourselves. It has always been the case that media serves to manipulate even if unintentionally. That includes both the "platforms" and their various participants.

So we should consider our situation and duty to be like that or any intelligence analyst. Take in all the information, no matter the reputation of the source, with hefty skepticism knowing that there are various and sundry games afoot and a clear picture of reality is unlikely. Opt instead to weigh varying degrees of confidence against each other rather than seeking to sit pat on our well formed conclusions from "reliable sources". Becuase the only thing you can rely upon is that if smething is being waved in-front of your face there is a motive and it's not for your benefit.

“All art is propaganda. It is universally and inescapably propaganda; sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately, propaganda.”

― Upton Sinclair

And with that I would urge people to disengage from this kind of battlefield, turn and look in the opposite direction of all these debates because there lie mountains of uncontested and ignored realities that are never spoken of and this is fully intentional.

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

#200

I came across this article today and actually thought it as true for a couple minutes. https://babylonbee.com/news/facebook-will-now-add-warnings-t... I just found that telling on how bad the current state of affairs has gotten.

Babylon Bee is satire, like The Onion but with a right wing bias. Edit: If you're going to downvote please explain why. What I said is factually correct.

OP implies that it's satire. So the only information you wanted to add is the right wing nature of the website (which has nothing to do with the article posted or OP's commentary).

Anyways (unlike reddit) we also don't ask why were we downvoted here, take it and move on. Generally down votes here come in when you add unnecessary 'color' to the conversation. Like you bring up an unrelated issue to the conversation to make it go towards the flame wars.

Its factually correct that a certain filesystem's developer went to jail for killing their spouse, but if someone keeps bringing it up on any discussion on filesystems and it results in a flamewar every single time then HN audience will downvote you.

Post reply on HN