Live data from Hacker News

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

buzzfeednews.com

181–190 of 258 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So the options are a) Facebook sells tactical equipment to one side, and body armor to the other, or b) They ban these product categories altogether.

In context with the fact that Facebook also served up the precise content day after day, year after year, which put people (the whole population) into this inconsistent-with-reality, individually tailored emotional state which is nothing if not a constant reflection and validation of their worst tendencies and pre-dispositions.

Think of an honestly shitty person whose problems are of their own creation in every way (for the purpose of this thought experiment, you can even pretend it’s not you). Do you think Facebook ever gave them a series of posts that reflects that? Or would they log on to see all the ways other people are the problem? And that’s everyone.

We all have flaws, but this is a profit-driven platform. And if you’re trying to sell someone something, making them feel like the true piece of shit they really are isn’t exactly in the ABCs of how to make a sale, much less at their machine-driven scale.

Facebook is basically the automated version of the guy rubbing a boxer’s shoulders in the corner of the ring, whispering in their ear a never-ending slew of made-up things the other guy said so that when the fight starts, he’s angry as can be.

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

#182
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.

Can you describe a typical scenario where a civilian might want to use body armor?

I understand that shooting high powered rifles is a lot of fun, so recreation makes sense with respect to weaponry, but I'm legitimately confused about why a civilian would ever want to own body armor. I can't imagine it's terribly comfortable to wear, and it doesn't seem very fun to me.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is someone supporting and fostering a bad act not also to blame? I see from your profile you work in adtech, perhaps rights shouldn't be decided by people who seek to avoid blame because they profit from it.

You have no idea about my background so let's stick to the actual argument.

Selling items and running ads is not the same as supporting or fostering a bad act. People can similarly buy knives or many other potential and actual weapons, it's still the user that's ultimately at fault.

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hm. OK. Let's compare this with how child pornography is handled, be it its distribution, or posession, not to speak of the production. Do you still think your position has merit? :-)

Yes, because my position isn't discussing illegal items. They can't run ads for heroin either.

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

#185
post #173
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.

It's the back half of the arms race. Just wait until the industry for armor-piercing bullets gets ramped up. Look at the cold war arms race. Anti-missile technology just led to a massive increase in nuclear weapons production. If your enemies defenses are 90% effective at shooting down missiles, just launch 10x as many missiles! This why both the United States and Soviet Union peaked at over 30,000 nuclear warheads[1…

Well if you don't wear bullet-proof armor, their switching over to armor piercing bullets doesn't put you in any more danger. If anything it's probably better than them using ammunition optimized for use against non-armored targets such as yourself.

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

#186
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't failure of anything. It's targeted advertising. They meant to do that. The system is working, "as advertised."

This is a failure of targeted advertising. Do you think Facebook would approve this if they had a human looking at the algorithm?

Yes. Targeted advertisement, and the resulting money, is the entire purpose of Facebook. Automation just makes the process faster. And cheaper; you know, that whole money thing.

I abhor both Parler and Facebook. In the context of these threads, I don't think either has done anything illegal, which is what passes for "ethics" in our economy. Of course IANAL.

I don't think Apple, Google and Amazon did anything illegal to Parler. And until these kinds of companies are legally and explicitly made into utilities, I don't think we can expect them to do anything except whatever they want.

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

#187

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…

It's the whole maximum paperclip problem with automation. There is a limit in how much you want to automate a task or else you end up with major unintended consequences.

You would think we would have gotten wise to this problem by now but nope.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is someone supporting and fostering a bad act not also to blame? I see from your profile you work in adtech, perhaps rights shouldn't be decided by people who seek to avoid blame because they profit from it.

You have no idea about my background so let's stick to the actual argument. Selling items and running ads is not the same as supporting or fostering a bad act. People can similarly buy knives or many other potential and actual weapons, it's still the user that's ultimately at fault.

When you run an ad for weapons next to articles inciting retaliation against the government, it does become the same as supporting or fostering an insurrection.

Now, sure, it can happen because you unleashed an algorithm on the world and don't know what it does, but you're still responsible for it.

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

#189
post #66

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…

My guess would be people who Facebook has identified as similar to you clicked on the ads. It's like those "people also bought..." recommendations on Amazon: the algorithm doesn't understand causation, only correlation.

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

#190
post #118

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.

The site https://www.sofmag.com/ currently shows advertising for gun accessories next to mostly political news and opinion pieces. Does the legality of this advertising depend on whether a person or an algorithm selected the advertising?

Questions like these are probably why the bill Josh Hawley wrote is clearly targeted at Facebook and Google, what with the $1.5bil revenue number: https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=...

(huh, is that a click tracker? URL from https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bill...)

Post reply on HN