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

#121

Post by nataz » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

dntrkv wrote: post #92

nataz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing adds for illegal pistol and rifle suppressors (aka "silencers") only barely disguised as "fuel filters" and "solvent traps". The companies selling the suppressor kits claim they are legitimate auto parts. They clearly aren't. Some people have claimed that it would be legal to buy these if you applied for a license to manufacture a suppressor, but good luck arguing that in federal court, especially since th…

Or the company selling those solvent traps are targeting people that are interested in firearms?

Interestingly enough, after I reported the first two ads I was shown I clicked on a link that was supposed to show why I was targeted.

The companies had targeted me by gender and age, and a couple of other broad identifiers I cant remember, but nothing about my hobbies, search history, or political orientation.

It's possible that FB didn't show me all of the criteria used to target these ads.

That still doesn't take away from the question of at what point do they become culpable with facilitating a felony offense?

Just because something is hard to do at scale (in this case review ads for illegal behavior), doesn't absolve a company from the responsibility to act.

To be clear, I don't know the answer to this question. Parlor got dumped for not doing enough (and personally I'm okay with that), but how do we determine if Facebook is doing enough?

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

#122

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #120

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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by sramam » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

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.

"gun" = "platform"

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

#124

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

bitbuilder wrote: post #109

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google Images is any indication a "tactical hooded trench coat" seems like exactly the kind of thing you see the HN demographic wearing while walking to work on a rainy day. TBH I was expecting to see actual trench coats but they all seem like normal tight-ish fitting jackets in various grays, greens, browns and camo.

I can't find it anywhere anymore, even on their site. They must have realized they weren't reading the room well with the ad and modeling. But I did screenshot it previously: https://imgur.com/gallery/bxcK7zb If that's the look of the HN demographic, I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was.

Now that's much more like what I expected to see when you said "hooded tactical trench coat"

I was seeing stuff like this which albeit somewhat tacky doesn't exactly scream IRA like that does.

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1nW0maN_rK1RkHFqDq6yJAFXaa/Fre...

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB19LG5p3MPMeJjy1Xdq6ysrXXaY/Tac...

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oqoAAOSwGj9dpoA7/s-l300.jpg

https://image.dhgate.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g6-M01-FD-51-rBVaR1rw2...

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

#125

Post by SauciestGNU » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

nataz wrote: post #66

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'm seeing adds for illegal pistol and rifle suppressors (aka "silencers") only barely disguised as "fuel filters" and "solvent traps". The companies selling the suppressor kits claim they are legitimate auto parts. They clearly aren't. Some people have claimed that it would be legal to buy these if you applied for a license to manufacture a suppressor, but good luck arguing that in federal court, especially since th…

I'm going to be pedantic, but in the US, those silencer kits can be legal. There are requirements for the provenance of the components used in them (can't be imported) but until you drill out the bore they're solvent traps or fuel filters. And if you pay for a tax stamp and file the correct paperwork with the ATF, it's completely legal to transform those items into a firearm suppressor.

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

#126

Post by arcticbull » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

JasonFruit wrote: post #116

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.

> 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…

One of the major specific roles of government in a civil society is to maintain and establish the rules of fair play which then allow for a functioning market economy. This represents an inherent compromise.We recognize and appreciate the value that integration and scale provides, and we use the scale of the government to keep it in check.

This isn’t just about going out and talking to people who disagree with you. Part of the issue is that the news bubbles that have been created out of news and stories and conspiracies that algorithms know we will react to chip away at our ability to have those conversations with each other.

You know, I watch a lot of Fox News, I have some deeply conservative friends and acquaintances and dude they live in a parallel universe. We need the government to collapse those universes together so we can have those conversations in the first place.

The ads to harm because they reinforce the structural walls between universes which prevent the necessary conversation from taking place. It’s pretty bad out there dude.

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

#127

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #118

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Probably not, but insurrection is.

If Facebook is distributing illegal messages inciting, or that constitute part of a conspiracy aimed at, insurrection, that is obviously a problem.

What legal ads it shows next to such messages is, if a legitimate concern at all, orders of magnitude less important.

If the content is not illegal, and the ads are not illegal, I’m not sure what the issue is at all.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #26

eganist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down. They've got (poorly paid and treated) human mods for user interactions, but apparently ad mods aren't a thing with them. So I'm largely in the same camp; if they're enabling armed insurrection by white supremacists (or extremists in the middle east, etc), Facebook should be boycotted b…

That's not what happened with Parler. They were boycotted by their vendors.

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

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…

This is the actual email that AWS sent to Parler informing them of its intent to suspend Parler: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...

Quoting AWS's literal rationale:

> Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. [...] This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but you plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts.

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

#130

Post by Daniel_sk » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

skrowl wrote: post #114

Calling body armor "Military Gear" as in "only the military should be able to buy body armor" is pretty sad, even by Buzzfeed extreme-left standards. Body armor can't kill anyone.

Yes, me eyes were rolling when I was reading that. I understand the issue when inappropriate Ads are shown for the specific context. This can happen not just with "military" / tacticool gear but anything else, I have seen this happen many times. But pointing our that this is military gear and it's some sort of intentional case (because it's military gear) is a ridiculous reporter hyperbole.