121–130 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately, and flamewars are what we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There is a world of difference between "posting flamewar comments" and pointing out the problems associated with Facebook's massive political influence campaigning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny that so much ire is directed at tech companies when I think there are a number of other companies that could be critiqued for much worse behavior.
Ah yes, the "but we're not Exxon" defense. You know things are bad when you have to stoop this low.
Many of the critiques that people have of FB are just critiques of what happen when large groups of people communicate online. If that's what people have issue with, I wish they would flag it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bloomberg spent enough money to give every US citizen $1000000 on his last presidential run! (Not really… there were just some newscasters that were really bad at math) But he did spend like $1B as just one candidate in the primaries.
We need an Ammendment to provide a common media/site for all candidates, with caps on outside advertising, even for PACs etc. The spending is so wasteful. If they care so much about the problems they're campaigning on, they could use the money to work on fixing them.
The fact that this isn't already the case is so weird. Probably due to the age of the constitution and legal system, its deification and the generic allergy to any evolution on that front.
Campaign regulations, including fairness in representation and budget limits are necessary for a healthy democracy, otherwise it's too susceptible to influence by rich people.
For instance, in Bulgaria that's taken to a somewhat extreme point - party/coalition lists running for election (it's a parliamentary democracy) get a fixed budget from the country if they fit the requirements (enough candidates, enough signatures) with a maximum allowance for donations and own funds to be used. Ads can't be just an attack on a rival, and have to include disclaimers who they're for, who they're paid for, and that buying and selling votes is a crime (an issue in Bulgarian elections, sadly). The system isn't perfect but IMHO it'd be far worse without those protections.
Quoted post unavailable.
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately, and flamewars are what we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, in your view, is "the max penalty" for this situation?
Additionally the judge should bar Facebook from displaying political ads. That would be far more punishment (and better for society I think) than a mere few hundred million fine.
Fines are often considered "the cost of doing business" these days. We need to revisit the system and take new approaches, like what you propose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they had to comply with local law in every area they operate it would be extremely complicated and expensive to manage. I think they fear the precedent not the dollars in this specific case. Edit: To be clear my opinion is that FB should be forced to comply, by federal action if necessary. That their business depends on not taking responsibility for the messages they choose to amplify is their problem and they sho…
"Compliance is hard" is not an excuse accepted anywhere. But just in case you actually believe this should be convincing, consider how many tax jurisdictions Facebook does business in. Do you think they just ignore all those local rules?
Happens in government without any repercussions all the time. Washington state took ten years after being ordered by the state Supreme Court to fully fund education to actually do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy has a decade plus vendetta against Facebook [0] and posts in all these threads. While I respect that, I wouldn't read too much into this comment. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3029872
I read the comment you linked. They seem to be eloquent and have good reason to dislike Facebook. Other commenters seem to agree with their views as well. I’m not sure what your intention is here, but this makes it feel like you’re taking a stance FOR Facebook/Meta and trying to discount numair’s feelings about FB which seem valid. This reads like a bot/paid commenter trying to de-legitimize real and honest discussio…
Quoted post unavailable.
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately, and flamewars are what we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
but IMHO his comment is not really flaming, especially as it wasn't a combative response.
[A quick look at his other comments implies he is not a troll, though a bit pessimistic.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately, and flamewars are what we're trying to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I wish to read such posts. OP's comments are often tendentious but also generally substantive. Given a history of FB being criticized for the ethics of political advertising both domestically and internationally, the criticism seems on point to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like FB failed to successfully prevent people running political ads in Washington, because on encountering the roadblock you identified, the ad customers just unchecked the "this is a political ad" checkbox.
The fact that this constitutes a serious attempt to block political ads is laughable.