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

251–258 of 258 posts

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

#251

Post by libertine »

emilfihlman wrote: post #249
libertine wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they sell it, doesn't mean everyone can buy them: you have difference licences for different uses. And not all licenses are available to everyone. Some licenses are strictly for law enforcement for example. I didn't say military grade ar15 is thing, i said our authorities can consider that a weapon is for military use. It's their call, not mine, or yours.

That's completely besides the point. One _can_ buy AR15s in Portugal. Yes it takes jumping through hoops, but it's entirely possible. If you don't mean what you say then don't say it.

Ah so after all you have to do things to circumvent some obstacles set in place. What are those?

I didn't say i didn't meant to say, I'm saying what's in our law.

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

#252

Post by libertine »

jakearmitage wrote: post #248
libertine wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, not needed at all. Such scuffs do happen but are very rare, usually revolve around some sort of treason - wife/friend/land dispute. Plus we don't have terrorist attacks (domestic and foreigners), we don't have religion fanatics that go on killing sprees, we have a good public healthcare system that helps mentally hill (we don't have serial killers, and the ones we had didn't achieve the pop culture status), we h…

I totally understand it is not needed, this was a straw man intended to detract from the idea that body armor is something alien and unnecessary for the general public. It is a personal protection item like any other. Is it useful in New York City or Lisbon? Probably not. But the same applies to other PPEs and we don't shame people for wanting to buy/use them. If a person feels safer using X, then fine, use it. As a…

Where did I mock people who feel safe for wearing a bullet proof vest?

Being odd doesn't mean it's ridiculous, or preposterous, means it's strange to me and my reality. Strange doesn't mean it's good or bad, means it's strange.

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

#253

Post by anovikov »

arcticbull wrote: post #150
anovikov wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s a false dichotomy. The only thing that ad tech gets you is specific targeting on a per user basis. You can still advertise related products and services based on the context in which the ads are presented without needing to know the marital status age range and skin color of the person doing the viewing.

Thank you, i didn't quite grasp that difference.

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

#254

Post by mminer237 »

a3n wrote: post #186
mminer237 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They want to target their ads in general, but they don't actually want to sell military gear to insurrectionists. It was just the AI working too well. Once they noticed, they have now blanket banned such ads until after the inauguration:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-facebo...

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

#255

Post by mminer237 »

bzbarsky wrote: post #228
mminer237 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no relevant law that would require Facebook or Parler to do any moderation because of Section 230, right?

That's not correct, as I understand it. Section 230 says that you can't be held liable for content on your site that you did not create yourself, even if you generally moderate your content (i.e. are not just a common carrier). But there are still laws that require you to _remove_ certain content (child porn comes to mind, but also material that infringes copyrights, etc) once you are aware of it. Concretely, given t…

Sorry, "any moderation" might have been a bit of a stretch. I definitely could have worded that better. If the authorities find it and tell you to take it down, you would obviously still have to comply. I just meant that I don't think it requires you to be proactive and monitor for things like that. You just have to react. Amazon was upset that Parler wasn't be proactive enough, not that it wasn't complying with court orders or something. I don't think Parler did anything illegal, so it would just all be up to their contracts.

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

#256

Post by dillondoyle »

Vecr wrote: post #240
dillondoyle wrote: post #195

Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and additionally add weapons of any type and in this case add military style gear - e.g. the storm trooper stuff. Add more advertising regulations like alcohol/tobacco. FB already prohibits weapons, alcohol, tobacco ads etc.. Gun manufacturers would have to KYC like banks, probably have to add big insurance costs and ultimately charge (significantly) higher prices whic…

Judges can usually see intent behind laws like that, similar things have been tried with abortion, attempting to make it harder/more expensive or similar, with not great success.

I'm not an expert here - I work in politics which overlaps a bit - it seems though that there is a very organized effort to install judges who go against this though right?

the Heritage Foundation has successfully placed hundreds on the bench who rule using plain text ultra-socially conservative legal theory. Even at the justice department some of Barr's speeches especially Notre Dame one are insanely religious and scary from my side of the fence.

And abortion seems to be the main test here too.

aren't there a few cases that could go before the supreme court soon where conservatives are hoping that Barrett's quote about re-examining past rulings and not holding precedent as the 'law' will reverse our progress?

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

#257

Post by dathinab »

inglor_cz wrote: post #205
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Micro Targeting can absolutely be abused and you have done a good job outlining the dark side of targeting. But to say nothing would be lost from banning it because its always used without regard for health and dignity is way to far. Brands like Zappos Adaptive which sells adult shoes that don't need to be tied to people with Autism. Its very hard to do this kind of sales without targeting people affected by disabili…

Would "people who bought this book also bought books X,Y,Z" count as microtargeting? Because I actually find these recommendations valuable.

I think we might need to differ between advertisers choosing the micro targets and automatic context dependent microtargeting . And for the later we probably would need to differentiate between basing the automatic general purpose targeting based on the current context (the site you are on + what subsection of the site you are on + what you have in your shopping car and similar) with the actual context + history + ML based micro categorization.

In general what I am against is advertisements where

- the advertiser can choose targets based on too fine grained categories (micro categories)

- people get classified with too fine grained categories

(Both points are mostly the same.)

So "people who bought this book also bought books X,Y,Z" is IMHO fine, even if it can sometime lead to bad situations as it can be abused much less. (EDIT: But that partially because it shows real products, "people who have seen XY news also see Z news" would be a different thing.)

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

#258

Post by gadders »

babygoat wrote: post #179
gadders wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think they seriously, seriously wanted to take over the US Government? 200 or so protestors that made it in? If you think that I don't know what to tell you. //Unfortunately I've hit the "You're posting too fast and you're not a democrat" limit so I can't reply further.

Does the rate limit only apply to non-Democrats? I don’t think they were trying to take over the government themselves, but they clearly wanted to disrupt and interfere with the election process and keep their regime in power, despite losing the election.

I'm sure the rate limit is applied in the even handed way that Silicon Valley is known for.

And they wanted a fair election process.

Post reply on HN