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

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

newacct583 wrote: post #81

lesstenseflow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

Daniel_sk wrote: post #130

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.

Post by Daniel_sk » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

libertine wrote: post #132

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.

The most baffling thing to me is the fact that body armor, and military grade weapons, are sold in USA... Like, we're discussing ad delivery, not the fact that a country allows companies to sell all kinds of weapons, and equipment to the general public... so I think that accurate ad targeting is the least of the problems.

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:11 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #107

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…

> so my guess is that someone out there is spending a lot of money on a huge ad target I think this is really it. The profit margins on this stuff is insane. And the volumes of money typical people spend on this stuff is also insane. (speculation here) The insurrection is probably opening the door for new customers. I would not be surprised to hear a people in zero-gun households are now seeking to acquire their firs…

Post by JasonFruit » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #126

JasonFruit wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. P…