Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

atg.wa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

#151

Post by paledot »

lozenge wrote: post #86
whimsicalism wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's hard to fathom how difficult it would be to literally run out of people to advertise to at facebooks scale.f Probably because they were doing hyperspecific targeting, not because FB literally didn't have any more users to serve ads. I doubt political ads are a major part of the mix - for one, there is little evidence that they are all that effective compared to TV ads.

We are talking about a campaign spending almost $20 billion a month, admittedly Facebook ads would only be a part of that, but why is it unrealistic that they ran out of ad spots to buy?

At $20b/mo, you could literally buy the TV networks and show whatever programming you wanted. Or make a decent down payment on Facebook.

Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

#152

Post by hnfong »

jsmith45 wrote: post #103
bogwog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a single executive goes to prison for something like this, even just for a few months, it will drastically reduce the willingness to break the law from these companies no matter how huge they are.

Or my view: Allow courts to "fire"[1] high level managers and executives who either can be proven to have actual knowledge, or who should have known by nature of their position that the crimes were occurring, and who failed to take appropriate steps to try and prevent this from continuing to occur[1]. This would only apply for significant enough crimes, and only if the criminal nature of the action is clearly obvious…

This would requite a major refactor of the legal system. Probably would take a couple thousand man-years to implement. Suggested workaround: just put those bastards in jail for a few days.

Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

#153

Post by anigbrowl »

pvg wrote: post #145
anigbrowl wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing that FB's primary reason for being is as a political influence operation rather than providing network effects to its users. I don't agree with your characterization of the comment. No doubt our interpretations will continue to differ.

My characterization of the comment is entirely orthogonal to any underlying truth it may be referring to - it's a trash comment. Yelling 'you're fat!' at an overweight person is a trash comment even if you somehow happen to believe it's also public health advocacy.

No doubt our interpretations will continue to differ.

Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

#154

Post by softfalcon »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #53
softfalcon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I just noticed his username because I’ve seen it so often in these threads about Facebook. And it seems dishonest for him to level accusations while carefully wording his comment to sound like an insider. I posted the link for context. FWIW I agree with him on most points, and I’ve just sent traffic to his 10 year old post disparaging Facebook, so if I’m a paid shill I’m pretty bad at it.

Yeah, I do agree the “insider” take did come across as unnecessary to make their points and does seem odd.

Also, a HN mod requested I didn’t make the comments I did about you. Seems like a valid rule and my comment didn’t really add to the discussion, so sorry about that as well.

Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

#155

Post by TechBro8615 »

softfalcon wrote: post #154
TechBro8615 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just noticed his username because I’ve seen it so often in these threads about Facebook. And it seems dishonest for him to level accusations while carefully wording his comment to sound like an insider. I posted the link for context. FWIW I agree with him on most points, and I’ve just sent traffic to his 10 year old post disparaging Facebook, so if I’m a paid shill I’m pretty bad at it.

Yeah, I do agree the “insider” take did come across as unnecessary to make their points and does seem odd. Also, a HN mod requested I didn’t make the comments I did about you. Seems like a valid rule and my comment didn’t really add to the discussion, so sorry about that as well.

No worries! It was my first time being called a paid shill for Facebook, which I found quite amusing anyway :D

Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws

#156

Post by softfalcon »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #155
softfalcon wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I do agree the “insider” take did come across as unnecessary to make their points and does seem odd. Also, a HN mod requested I didn’t make the comments I did about you. Seems like a valid rule and my comment didn’t really add to the discussion, so sorry about that as well.

No worries! It was my first time being called a paid shill for Facebook, which I found quite amusing anyway :D

Yeah, in retrospect, even wondering if that’s true about someone is pretty insulting. So again, sorry about that.

Glad you’re the kind of person to laugh it off, you seem like cool people.

Post reply on HN