[flagged]
What a deeply cynical and selfish point of view.
Why? Cynical is believing people must be protected from opinions.
I'm far more optimistic than most.
Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
61–70 of 181 posts
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#62> Google did not pro-actively vet the truth of Israeli government claims It is really scary that people are pushing for Google and Meta to be the arbiter of truth. I don't think people realize what they are asking for. Western civilizations have a tradition of liberal free speech, and allowing the courts to sort out the specifics of what speech causes harm to what parties (libel, etc). There are already laws on the b…
We do put additional editorial standards on news publications. This puts legal responsibility for the published content on the publisher.
It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo you do the obvious which is to make the advertiser name a human editor who holds legal responsibility for published ads (on behalf of the company).
Now you can sue the advertising company (eg. Google) for millions of false advertisements at once.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Stealing a physical thing = the previous owner can't use it. Copying a thing or accessing a platform = the previous owner can still use or sell it. Even if you consider it unethical access, the comparison to stealing really misses the mark.
> the comparison to stealing really misses the mark
I know this always triggers a hard-coded response based on regex, but the comparison doesn't rely on the specifics of stealing, so it's not a valid criticism. The logic is: people offer things in exchange for a price. You can take the things in exchange for the price, or you can leave the things. You shouldn't take the things without paying the price.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#64> Google did not pro-actively vet the truth of Israeli government claims It is really scary that people are pushing for Google and Meta to be the arbiter of truth. I don't think people realize what they are asking for. Western civilizations have a tradition of liberal free speech, and allowing the courts to sort out the specifics of what speech causes harm to what parties (libel, etc). There are already laws on the b…
We do put additional editorial standards on news publications. This puts legal responsibility for the published content on the publisher. It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo yo…
Actually we don’t put any responsibilities on news publications beforehand. They can be sued after the fact for libel/slander.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#65> Google did not pro-actively vet the truth of Israeli government claims It is really scary that people are pushing for Google and Meta to be the arbiter of truth. I don't think people realize what they are asking for. Western civilizations have a tradition of liberal free speech, and allowing the courts to sort out the specifics of what speech causes harm to what parties (libel, etc). There are already laws on the b…
The government (and/or society?) have already deputized private organizations to enforce various types of controls either implicitly or explicitly. Banks (AML) and Payment Processors (recent Steam content removal news) come to mind. Irrespective of whether it's a good or bad things, it already exists.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you imagine this logic being applied to any other topic? >At this point, whoever opposes [CSAM scanning/encryption backdoors] is in favor of [child abuse/criminal activity] ...
This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse? A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment (either regulation or rampant corporate abuse). My idea is for us to discuss this. Is regulation not the right way? What's the alternative? Not, "oh if that doesn't work for all possible universe of applicable solutions…
>This is a stawman designed to misdirect the discussion. How about we keep discussing regulation in the context of ad abuse?
I can't see how my comment is a "strawman" in any meaningful sense.
>A valid criticism would be an implied false dichotomy in my original comment
That's exactly my point. Adopting a "you're either with us or against us" attitude is totally toxic, and shouldn't be accepted just because it's for a cause you happen to agree with.
>My idea is for us to discuss this. Is regulation not the right way? What's the alternative? Not, "oh if that doesn't work for all possible universe of applicable solutions, it doesn't deserve merit"
If you wanted an intelligent discussion on what regulation should consist of, what's the point of starting off which such an absolutist remark? What does it add compared to something like "what's the right form of regulation to address this?"
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#67> Google did not pro-actively vet the truth of Israeli government claims It is really scary that people are pushing for Google and Meta to be the arbiter of truth. I don't think people realize what they are asking for. Western civilizations have a tradition of liberal free speech, and allowing the courts to sort out the specifics of what speech causes harm to what parties (libel, etc). There are already laws on the b…
Just repeal section 230 and we can make the court systems the arbiter of truth. Meta/Google don't care about what ads they run because they have no incentive to stop misinformation in fact they make money off of it.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you imagine this logic being applied to any other topic? >At this point, whoever opposes [CSAM scanning/encryption backdoors] is in favor of [child abuse/criminal activity] ...
You are comparing the regulation of business practices to the breach of human rights. Do you also think your water company should be allowed to poison the water coming from your tap?
>You are comparing the regulation of business practices to the breach of human rights.
So "you're either with us or on the side of the bad guys" is a valid form of argument, but only when the bad guys are evil corporations? More to the point, much of the "regulations" proposed does end up infringing on human rights. For instance regulations forcing social media companies to remove "disinformation" or "content causing hatred/discomfort" necessarily limits others' freedom of speech.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#69> Google did not pro-actively vet the truth of Israeli government claims It is really scary that people are pushing for Google and Meta to be the arbiter of truth. I don't think people realize what they are asking for. Western civilizations have a tradition of liberal free speech, and allowing the courts to sort out the specifics of what speech causes harm to what parties (libel, etc). There are already laws on the b…
We do put additional editorial standards on news publications. This puts legal responsibility for the published content on the publisher. It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo yo…
Can you give examples of laws that put editorial standards on publishers? I am not familiar with any (I mostly know US stuff). A quick search only returned:
- Disclosure of Advertorial Content: U.S. law requires that if paid content is presented as editorial matter in a periodical, it must be clearly marked as an "advertisement".
- Prohibiting Harmful Content: Laws prohibit publishing content that is obscene, libelous, or scandalous.
- Copyright and Intellectual Property: Laws govern the exclusive rights of authors to their literary and artistic works, including the right to print, publish, and distribute them.
- Privacy Laws: Publishers must comply with laws protecting personal data and privacy.
- Online Platforms and Section 230: While not directly about publisher standards, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content, distinguishing them from publishers in this context.
I can't sue a publisher for running an ad that was libel. I sue the advertiser who created the libel.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do put additional editorial standards on news publications. This puts legal responsibility for the published content on the publisher. It doesn't seem like that big a step to apply a similar standard to advertising platforms. Advertisers have failed to selfregulate the ads they choose to publish and it is infeasible to use the court system to judicate every false ad (that would be millions of court cases). Ergo yo…
Actually we don’t put any responsibilities on news publications beforehand. They can be sued after the fact for libel/slander.
Yes, but you can sue the organization itself.
However, our laws mean that Google, Meta, etc. are not legally responsible for the content of the ads they run. The creator of the ad is.
And it is shockingly easy to construct a legal entity that is unaccountable.