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

Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 236 posts

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#211

Post by dzjkb »

RomanPushkin wrote: post #149
dzjkb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, but why do you think people don't use DMT recreationally?

There is no euphoric effect or any other effect that makes it recreational. It's more of a self-reflection tool that helps to breakthrough into the perception of things that are so much different. And it helps to break bad habits actually: alcohol, tobacco, being aggressive, etc. Also, because it's not euphoric, it is not addictive as other drugs (read: alcohol and above).

It's definitely a tool to break bad habits, but the psychedelic effect can also be recreational, especially before breakthrough doses - not that I use it myself, but I know of some people who do ; )

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#212

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jessekv wrote: post #147
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flaw here is in expecting Facebook to be the police. Here's what happens if you make Facebook do it. They become aware of someone running an illegal ad and ban them. But the advertiser is a criminal and still wants to make money, so they make a new account or find some way to avoid detection, and the ad ends up back in the system, and the advertiser can do this forever because they're making a net profit by conti…

Since ads are targeted, only Facebook can know when an illegal ad is run. Are you suggesting Facebook should be reporting the people running ads to law enforcement?

If everybody is using an ad blocker then it doesn't really matter what ads they run, does it?

If some users don't use an ad blocker then there is obviously someone other than Facebook who knows when an illegal ad is run and can report it to law enforcement.

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#213

Post by xigoi »

righthand wrote: post #34

Are drug ads bad because of the war on drugs? Are they bad because we won’t let tobacco make ads? The only way this seems shockingly bad is that you can’t actually control what you see as a user of these ad-supported services or if you support the war on drugs.

I came to this comment section expecting someone to argue that aykshually drugs are good. Never disappointed.

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#214

Post by rightbyte »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #208
aeturnum wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree it's a hard problem, but Facebook is the one telling us they can be the police. If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crimes, you shouldn't operate the business. It's understandable - there are some businesses that it takes too much skill to operate without doing a crime and so people don't (there are lots of things that banks won't do that fall into this category). Facebook, by…

> If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crimes, you shouldn't operate the business. It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. > The problem, to me, is that everything you said applies down stream too. You can't be sure the person purchasing the ad is trying to commit a crime either (perhaps they were hacked, perhaps they were dumb, etc). Which is why w…

> It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes.

Aiding and abetting is a thing.

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#215

Post by tzs »

realusername wrote: post #47
deathanatos wrote: post #43

YouTube has been hitting me up with "ads" which are Ethereum scams¹ recently. Of what I've reported, 60% are still up. Some of these were reported in March. Recently I also got an "ad" for what was almost certainly Sovereign Citizen propaganda, which … wow , I didn't even know they ran YT ads?² Today's ads (since I checked just to see for this comment) is all normal stuff. ¹they allege to have written an "arbitrage"…

On my phone, only about half of the Youtube ads look legal. They have it all: crypto scams, ponzi schemes, fake mobile games, get quick rich schemes... Some stuff can always slip through but to have a result like this, there's a systemic lack of checks at Google.

I wonder how they decide who to show the scam ads to?

I get them, but only very rarely. What I'm getting recently are mainly ads for Old Spice, Walmart, Consumer Cellular, Verizon Visible, Exxon, a couple upcoming movies, Target, automobile insurance, and fundraising for the Harris campaign.

The one thing almost all the ads I have gotten on YT have in common is that they are useless. Some are useless because they are advertising something that I have no interest in. The ones that are advertising something that I am interested in are either for something I've already bought or for something that I've already evaluated and bought a competitor.

I did recently switch from T-Mobile Connect to Verizon Visible, and I learned about Visible from a YT ad, but I don't think the ad influenced my decision to switch.

The reason I left T-Mobile Connect is that I'm planning on replacing my replacing my Series 4 Apple Watch soon. I'm going to get a model with cellular this time and T-Mobile Connect does not support Apple Watch cellular so I had to look for a new carrier. That led me to a page at Apple that lists all US carriers that have watch plans [1]. Visible is on that list so I would have ended up looking at them even if I hadn't heard about them earlier from that YT ad.

[1] Appalachian Wireless, AT&T, C Spire, Cellcom Wisconsin, Consumer Cellular, Cricket Wireless, GCI, Nex-Tech Wireless, Spectrum Mobile, T-Mobile USA, UScellular, Verizon Wireless, Visible, and Xfinity Mobile.

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#216

Post by thaumasiotes »

barbazoo wrote: post #111
thaumasiotes wrote: post #11

Is "hundreds" supposed to be a large amount? How many ads has Facebook run for Mountain Dew?

It's also only been one people they've promoted genocide against, should still probably care about it. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

How did they promote it?

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#217

Post by righthand »

xigoi wrote: post #213
righthand wrote: post #34

Are drug ads bad because of the war on drugs? Are they bad because we won’t let tobacco make ads? The only way this seems shockingly bad is that you can’t actually control what you see as a user of these ad-supported services or if you support the war on drugs.

I came to this comment section expecting someone to argue that aykshually drugs are good. Never disappointed.

I’m arguing that drugs are good? Doesn’t take much to get you going.

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#218

Post by Ajedi32 »

galdosdi wrote: post #179
toast0 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's actually that easy. In the US, we have Section 230[1], which says > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Seems to me, that says if you have a problem with the advertisement, you need to go to the source, not the ad network. You're proposing an exception for advertiseme…

> Section 230 isn't some immutable force, so yes, political force is all that's needed, Exactly. Glad you agree. It's just an act of congress. We pass many every year, including far bigger ones. > you've got to define advertisement. I did in my post. I'll repeat myself for you: (1) the platform is profiting from it (2) the platform is pushing and selecting the content to the user at the platform's whim, not the user'…

That's a workable definition at least, but what you're proposing is effectively a nationwide ban on algorithmically recommended content. Or is that your whole point?

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#219

Post by linotype »

mrguyorama wrote: post #191
linotype wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from YouTube, there’s an alternative for all of the services provided by Google and Meta. Fastmail, X (Twitter), a billion different messenger apps, Microsoft apps for office applications, etc etc.

Google and Facebook are ads companies. Everything they build, deploy, do, share, sell, and buy is about selling ads. Youtube is a platform to sell ads. Gmail is a platform to collect data to sell ads. Facebook is a platform to collect data to sell ads on Facebook. Both companies have "analytics" products that exist to collect more data for ads. What competition is there in the Ad space for internet advertising?

I agree there really isn’t any for ads, it’s pretty much a duopoly now (though TikTok and Amazon are growing).

I was more referring to consumer products like email and office suites.

Re: Meta has run hundreds of ads for cocaine, opioids and other drugs

#220

Post by voxic11 »

rightbyte wrote: post #214
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you really feel you can't operate a business without doing crimes, you shouldn't operate the business. It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. > The problem, to me, is that everything you said applies down stream too. You can't be sure the person purchasing the ad is trying to commit a crime either (perhaps they were hacked, perhaps they were dumb, etc). Which is why w…

> It isn't Facebook doing crimes, they're a company whose customers are doing crimes. Aiding and abetting is a thing.

Aiding and abetting requires intent. If I am a bus driver and a bank robber happens to ride on my bus on his way to rob a bank I am not aiding and abetting because I had no intent or knowledge of the crime.

> To convict as a principal of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the principal(s) in each essential element of the crime

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

Post reply on HN