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

Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 258 posts

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#31

Post by throwawayin12 »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #8

According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down. Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.

How to moderate Facebook and make sure there is no illegal content is a big topic in Europe.

Some open problems:

* Nazi propaganda * Content that's dangerous to the development of children (violence, eating disorders, ...) * Sexual harassment * Libel and slander

So yes, take that together with Facebooks data transfers across the Atlantic and there is a real chance of Facebook shutting down in Europe.

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#32

Post by randlet »

solarkraft wrote: post #27
randlet wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's social media for middle-aged conservatives Are you sure about that? When I sign on to Facebook, it appears to be social media for middle-aged liberal minded people. Facebook is a bit of a mirror in that sense.

I thought Facebook was just for memes! It has become pretty good at only showing you things you like to counter the reputation of making you hate the people you know IRL, I suspect.

Exactly. Almost the only time I see things that I disagree strongly with is when I'm shown a comment by one of my contacts who is in a stupid fruitless argument where neither party has a chance in hell of changing the other persons mind.

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#33

Post by shockeychap »

gurleen_s wrote: post #18
theandrewbailey wrote: post #8

According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down. Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.

There’s a difference between what happened to Parler (vendors refusing to do business with them) and Facebook (relatively more self reliant).

Isn't Facebook dependent on backbone service providers at their data centers? Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service?

Edit: For a multitude of reasons - money, money, and money - I don't expect any vendors would discontinue service with Facebook. The question is more of a thought exercise.

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#34

Post by gruez »

solarkraft wrote: post #24
rreichel03 wrote: post #7

As an anecdote, since July they've started showing me ads for body armor almost nonstop whenever I actually open the app. Just the other day it was a body armor ad then an ad for a tactical communication earpiece.

I wonder how many dollars have been spent on bombarding you specifically with shit you're (probably) not interested in, instead of just randomly doing so (with a chance of success).

are facebook ads pay per click or pay per impression?

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#35

Post by mtnGoat »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #8

According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down. Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.

I for one would be ok with that.

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#36

Post by ben_w »

optimiz3 wrote: post #28
prophetjohn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no Facebook fan or apologist, but I do think there's a distinction between failing to moderate perfectly (or even well) and refusing to even attempt to moderate.

Clearly Facebook's systems are able to associate correct ads based on the semantics of the content. Since this is true, why can't those systems moderate said content?

If I assume that they are operating in good faith, false positives versus false negatives. Showing the wrong advert loses you a few pennies each time, incorrectly blocking legitimate content has a power-law distribution of cost in political capital, depending on whose stuff you block.

I don’t trust FB enough to want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this would still be true if I did.

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#37

Post by mtnGoat »

gruez wrote: post #34
solarkraft wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many dollars have been spent on bombarding you specifically with shit you're (probably) not interested in, instead of just randomly doing so (with a chance of success).

are facebook ads pay per click or pay per impression?

Per click

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#38

Post by RIMR »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #8

According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down. Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.

Parler rented all their infrastructure from companies that get to choose how their infrastructure gets used. Private companies can run themselves as they please.

Facebook owns all their own infrastructure and gets the final say on how their infrastructure is used. Private companies can run themselves as they please.

If you violate the terms of your rental agreement, your landlord gets to kick you out. If you can't afford to own your own infrastructure, you answer to those who do.

Welcome to Capitalism.

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#39

Post by lesstenseflow »

prophetjohn wrote: post #15
theandrewbailey wrote: post #8

According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down. Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.

I'm no Facebook fan or apologist, but I do think there's a distinction between failing to moderate perfectly (or even well) and refusing to even attempt to moderate.

Parler did have moderation. What platform are you referring to here?

Re: Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts

#40

Post by pjc50 »

_gmnw wrote: post #10

Facebook knows their audience well and is catering to it. It's social media for middle-aged conservatives, so it makes sense to advertise to them. I don't know of a lot of young people who use the platform still, they've all gone off to TikTok or Instagram(still FB I know).

Middle-aged conservatives buying insurrection cosplay gear is, I would say, a problem in itself that America is really unwilling to confront. The boundary between pretend and reality gets very, very thin and the ammunition purchased is live.

(It could even fall under existing restrictions on ""gangs"", if those weren't targeted at nonwhite people only!)

Post reply on HN