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

111–120 of 258 posts

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

#111

Post by chmod600 »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #91

Worked on me. I just bought some AR500 plate armor. Better safe than sorry in today's world. I don't see any downside to buying body armor.

The main downside of pretty much any purchase like that is that it distracts your attention/time/money from other safety gear.

For instance, an extra fire extinguisher on the other side of the house is probably a better purchase for most people in terms of safety. But someone might spend their "safety" budget (time, money, attention) on the armor and then be left without the basics.

Also, unless you have a gun already or you are physically strong, armor doesn't seem likely to be effective.

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

#112

Post by at_a_remove »

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…

What's very interesting about this is that it makes a great data counterpoint for the "AI will never just spontaneously decide to do [bad thing]." If releasing the HypnoDrones will help sell more paperclips, it's gonna happen.

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

#113

Post by whoknew1122 »

IncRnd wrote: post #90
whoknew1122 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indepe…

The decision wasn't political. It was based on repeated terms of service violations (as proven by the emails from AWS that Parler itself leaked).

Whether AWS was able to make that decision because of the political calculus had changed (e.g. there was demonstrable evidence of real-life violence stemming from plans made on Parler; others had taken action against Parler; AWS's employees were publicly calling for Parler to be removed from AWS) -- that's a different question.

The timing can be political but the decision apolitical.

This is ignoring that Parler's continued prior existence was likely in part due to the politics (i.e. American conservative allegations that Big Tech's pervasively censors right-wing and Republican voices).

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

#115

Post by brundolf »

anovikov wrote: post #108
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.

But only real alternative to adtech is spam: cheap (because of very low effectiveness), flashy rows of banner ads, 1990s style. I am old enough to remember how obnoxious internet experience was ~20 years ago before targeted ads became a thing. It sucked.

I'll take "obnoxious" over "insidiously effective"

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

#116

Post by JasonFruit »

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.

> Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have.

That attitude is the problem: why do we go straight from "This is a problem!" to the government? Aren't there solutions other than making things illegal? Is it just because making things illegal is easier than talking to our neighbors and friends, and giving them peaceful solutions to their problems, doing business locally, and refusing to do business through online ads that use techniques that lead to results like this?

People who call for insurrection are usually plenty aware of where to get things like this anyway. It's a bad look for Facebook, sure; but are these ads likely to do real harm? I doubt it. There's plenty of time for sensible people to make a difference without creating more anger by trying to make even more restrictive laws.

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

#117

Post by csharptwdec19 »

dunnevens wrote: post #106
DIVx0 wrote: post #59

I'll pile on an anecdote. I still have a facebook account but its not something I use very often except the past week given the situation in the USA. My facebook account is very old, when i was more of an active user I did all the usual posts/photos that a lot of liberal urban types contribute. Anyway, after posting some anti-insurrection posts I start noticing all sort of "tacti-cool" gear ads or targeted T-shirt s…

I think your last assumption is correct. I've had something similar happen to me. I participate in ex-evangelical groups because of my childhood. And other groups highly critical of American conservative Christianity. Facebook floods my ads with appeals from conservative churches, conservative religious organizations, and for some reason thinks I'm deeply interested in Calvinism. It's oddly reassuring. This shows FB…

Ever since I started getting involved in Tarot/Reiki/Pagan groups, Facebook has started showing me advertisements for products very clearly designed for females despite me being male in both biology and identity.

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

#118

Post by dahart »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #84
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.

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?

> Are the ads illegal? [...] should they be shut down?

Probably not, but insurrection is. The ad isn’t the problem here, the context & juxtaposition is the problem. It’s not a call to shut down ads, it’s a call to avoid accidentally (or worse, intentionally) supporting illegal speech and violence.

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

#119

Post by tremon »

manigandham wrote: post #103
sramam wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

How is that argument? The people advertising and selling are not the people buying and using them. It's different people.

Yes, but Facebook and Google are neither of those. They're just the platform where the advertisers and their victims connect. I think the parent was saying this is less to do with the algorithm, and more due to the keywords that the advertisers chose to link their product with.

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

#120

Post by manigandham »

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.

Liability for what exactly? How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it?

It seems like you haven't really thought about this and are just personally against adtech and those companies. That's not how rights and legislation should be decided.

Post reply on HN