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.
For body armor and certain kinds of weapons and attachments, one needs a Class III license. They are not available to the general public, as you wrote.
EDIT: I'm wrong on body armor. I could have sworn at least some of it was restricted and required a license.
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.
Fostering insurrection for profit is, I am pretty sure, illegal. And I'm pretty sure a prison or worse offense.
What about empowering people to protect themselves from violent insurrectionists? If I read in the news that a whole bunch of people planned to converge on my town and shoot at each other, I would certainly consider buying some body armor
> 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.
Advertisements are also messaging.
Take a news article about a governer starting a new coronavirus lockdown. This article having ads for hand sanitizer, and this article having ads for zip-ties, are two very different messages.
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?
That argument doesn't really hold up when Facebook literally serves the ads. In the metaphor you're suggesting, this would make Facebook the one wielding the gun, and companies buying ads would be whoever hired them to do the job. Hired hitmen are still criminally liable, despite not being the client.
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.
For body armor and certain kinds of weapons and attachments, one needs a Class III license. They are not available to the general public, as you wrote. EDIT: I'm wrong on body armor. I could have sworn at least some of it was restricted and required a license.
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.
Nothing's fundamentally changed, besides the flashing. Load up a site without Adblock, and you'll have a time warp moment.
> 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.
>If the content is not illegal, and the ads are not illegal, I’m not sure what the issue is at all.
Have you ever considered that what is illegal can be changed, and that the commenters you are replying to may feel that some part of this industry should be made illegal? It used to be legal to advertise cigarettes to children, and now it's not.
If you want to argue that it will be difficult to write and pass legislation that actually accomplishes anything meaningful, I'd agree. But to say "no laws are being broken so who cares?" is just so unproductive. Something has to be done here, and I think I would rather have it be done at a government level so that I can at least feel like I had some say in it.
I have been getting nothing but milsurp/"tactical tim" ads for 2020. I don't chat about plate carriers, bugout bags, etc ever, I don't engage in anything about it.. Facebook has just become like a bad gun store ad platform.
Body armor, helmets and any sort of protective gear is legal in most parts of world, and I would bet any EU state (and in case of my EU country I can buy an AR-15 or any sort of semi-automatic weapon).
Such protective equipment might be legal in most parts of the world, but they have a small market - the ad in the article is selling it like any regular product... literally they say "The survival gear that you are missing!", like it's some pillow being sold for a good night sleep. It's just odd. >I would bet any EU state (and in case of my EU country I can buy an AR-15 or any sort of semi-automatic weapon) Well in t…
Survival / military e-shops are quite popular in EU, although they mostly target people that play airsoft, do reenactment, survival, bushcraft and so on. Preparing for a coup or for protection against the government is not a standard target group in Europe :-).
In Slovakia and Czech republic you can own basically any short or long weapon and any caliber as long as it's not full-auto. But you can of course only bring it to an official shooting range or match. Owning a weapon for self defense is possible for regular citizen and you can carry it with you (only concealed), but only for short weapons (pistols, revolvers). But it's not a constitutional right, it's a privilege and you have to meet certain condition. It's a longer topic. But I wanted to say that even though we have a lot of weapons, the gun crime rate is extremely low. Maybe that's also because every gun is registered, you have to take all the exams (medical, psychological, background check, weapon law test) and so on... It's also forbidden to bring a weapon (even if concealed) to a protest, your weapon license would be taken and say good bye to your guns.
Weapons in hands of citizen doesn't equal to gun crime (also check Switzerland), but I am also not a proponent of constitutional right for everyone to carry a weapon.
So it's maybe similar to social networks - they can become a danger if they are not regulated (same as weapons, if they are unregulated and freely available).
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.
People always act as though companies are somehow entitled to highly effective advertising. I'd prefer a return to those obnoxious ads, they were low-tech and everyone learned to ignore them.