Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by newacct583 » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

lesstenseflow wrote: post #39

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.

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

Parler had a moderation process. It verifiably failed to actually prevent violent rhetoric (c.f. Lin Wood calling for Pence's execution days before the crowd took the capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence!").

In this interview (audio, but there's a transcript) Matze details some of it, and basically explains that violent-but-popular content is going to be left up because of "free speech": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...

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

#82

Post by numpad0 » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

brundolf wrote: post #67

The unintuitive thing here (for the general population at least, possibly not the HN crowd) is that almost certainly nobody at Facebook saw, and approved (much less designed) this marketing strategy. It naturally emerged from the goals the system has been given. That doesn't excuse it: in fact, it indicts automated targeted-advertisement as a category. This software is working exactly as it was designed to. I'm sure…

IMO the entire corporate system is working as intended, maximizing profit and growth, by promoting engagement and generating clicks within bounds it’s given in case with social media.

It’s often said that companies aren’t people and not alive or conscious. I agree to the first one, but for the rest, is there a mathematical proof for those?

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

#83

Post by IncRnd » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

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.

> I do think there's a distinction between failing to moderate perfectly (or even well) and refusing to even attempt to moderate.

That may be a distinction without a difference. What company failed to even attempt to moderate?

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

#84

Post by TYPE_FASTER » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #72

brundolf wrote: post #67

The unintuitive thing here (for the general population at least, possibly not the HN crowd) is that almost certainly nobody at Facebook saw, and approved (much less designed) this marketing strategy. It naturally emerged from the goals the system has been given. That doesn't excuse it: in fact, it indicts automated targeted-advertisement as a category. This software is working exactly as it was designed to. I'm sure…

That's why the solution is liability: Companies will keep leaving unchecked algorithms responsible for this until they can go to jail for doing so. Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have. Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.

Are the ads illegal? Or the products they are advertising? The website for Soldier of Fortune advertises similar products, should they be shut down? How about the print magazine, should that be shut down as well?

There are a lot of sites out there that publish much more objectionable content. Should we shut all of them down as well?

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

#85

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #76

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the solution is liability: Companies will keep leaving unchecked algorithms responsible for this until they can go to jail for doing so. Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have. Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.

For clarity: liability solutions are civil and aren't going to put anyone behind bars. But yes, that's absolutely part of the puzzle. Companies who made money by peddling armor and ammo and gear into an extremist community they were simultaneously trying to moderate need to be held partially responsible. And that goes for the apocalyptic end-times mess that has infested the gun and gun-peripheral industries too. If y…

Criminal liability isn't an impossible thing to do.

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

#86

Post by IncRnd » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #51

shockeychap wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service? Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.

> Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.

That's not true. Laws supercede contracts. You cannot write a contract that creates new law between parties.

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

#87

Post by sramam » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #72

brundolf wrote: post #67

The unintuitive thing here (for the general population at least, possibly not the HN crowd) is that almost certainly nobody at Facebook saw, and approved (much less designed) this marketing strategy. It naturally emerged from the goals the system has been given. That doesn't excuse it: in fact, it indicts automated targeted-advertisement as a category. This software is working exactly as it was designed to. I'm sure…

That's why the solution is liability: Companies will keep leaving unchecked algorithms responsible for this until they can go to jail for doing so. Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have. Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.

> Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.

Why not the CEOs of the companies using the targeted keywords/demographic information?

The "it's not the gun that kills, it's the people who kill" argument?

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

#88

Post by newacct583 » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #55

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.

Incitement to terrorism isn't something where failing to moderate perfectly should be tolerated. There is already a zero-tolerance approach to numerous extremist groups, regardless of whether they are active on American soil or not. Why should this be treated any differently?

> Why should this be treated any differently?

Obviously this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is an elephant-in-the room kind of thing so I think it needs to be said:

The reason is that the overlap between "extremism" and our (now) minority political party is so large as to have muddled the distinction. Per one poll, 45% of Trump voters approve of the sacking of the capitol. It's really not possible to distinguish people who merely post angry political speech and the ones who stray into extremist rhetoric about revolution and violence. The same people are doing all of it.

So right now, "moderating communities with extreme content" simply looks a lot like "censoring republicans". But... I don't see how that gets better by outlawing the moderation. Republicans need to fix their rhetoric first.

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

#89

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

tasubotadas wrote: post #2

What did you expect the algos to show? Teddy bears? We all know what kind of people went there and even a simple Linear Regression can figure out this correlation :).

>What did you expect the algos to show? Teddy bears?

Junk I actually want to buy might be a good start.

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

#90

Post by IncRnd » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

whoknew1122 wrote: post #63

fvdessen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's obvious that private companies should not be able to 'run themselves as they please'. Also in my country landlords can't kick renters out if they disagree politically. I think that's a good thing. Maybe similar regulation should apply to infrastructure providers.

Parler wasn't kicked off AWS because of a political disagreement. It was kicked off for multiple terms of service violations and unwillingness to adequately moderate its platform to ensure that further ToS violations didn't occur. Surely in your can get kicked out of your rental if you violate the lease. Especially if your landlord sits down with you and discusses the issues and you still can't commit to not violatin…

> Parler wasn't kicked off AWS because of a political disagreement. It was kicked off for multiple terms of service violations and unwillingness to adequately moderate its platform to ensure that further ToS violations didn't occur.

It's a little strange, then, how Amazon took Parler's money until a day after others deplatformed Parler right after the election. Amazon's decision doesn't seem as arms-length and independent as you believe.