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

Facebook's PR feels broken

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#11

Post by r00fus »

muglug wrote: post #3

Facebook is just transitioning to becoming the digital equivalent of an oil company. They make a product that billions consume, but that many people think is doing damage to the environment (even though many of those critics still consume the product). That's why their PR machine is now switching to these slightly astroturfy campaigns. The next step is an advert along the lines of "They call it pollution. We call it…

Analogies in fiction to the "oil company uber alles" - Technocore in the Hyperion Cantos [0] as well as Phyrexian Unlife [1] in Magic the Gathering CCG.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Cantos [1] https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Discussion.aspx?mult...

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#12

Post by asaramis »

svachalek wrote: post #7
creaghpatr wrote: post #2

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the…

I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m…

The other two major parts of this:

Facebook's ad model is built to reward "virality" - meaning being over the top and salacious means lower costs. Even Boz acknowledges that was part of the Trump team's genius - they used the platform, as it was built, perfectly. The Democrats naturally have equal access to this platform, so I don't think its as much a left-right thing, vs a crazy-calm divide.

The other thing is just disinformation / identity verification - making sure all advertisers are who they say they are (and you don't get russians posing as black lives matter, etc.)

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#13

Post by Seenso »

svachalek wrote: post #7
creaghpatr wrote: post #2

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the…

I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m…

> 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening.

> Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m not so sure about #3.

I think you overstate #3 a little bit. It could have been happening without Facebook, but at a lower scale and not effectively enough to matter.

I think there's also a #4:

4. Facebook ad-targeting allows the influence to be covert, because watchdog group members are probably not part of the targeted demographics.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#14

Post by r00fus »

svachalek wrote: post #7
creaghpatr wrote: post #2

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the…

I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m…

If you accept the premise of #1 and #2, #3 may simply be analogous to how money laundering was possible before bitcoin, but now it's easier/cheaper and harder to trace.

So the argument could be said they disrupted that black market but are a publicly listed company.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#15

Post by drewrv »

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company should have that amount of power. The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#16

Post by hcnews »

quanticle wrote: post #5
creaghpatr wrote: post #2

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the…

I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific pol…

Wow, that post is pretty deluded. To paraphrase crudely, he is doing mental gymnastics to justify and invest in his/facebook's current position. An easy example of this is:

> If I want to eat sugar and die an early death that is a valid position.

Sure, if you want to make an informed choice, go for it. Nothing prevents a person from buying and consuming 10lbs of sugar everyday. However, the obvious problem which a lot of people have been focussed on is how do we prevent unhealthy amounts of sugar from being present in all food.

All of this sidestepping from Facebook and its execs reminds me of tactics used by Trump (and Republicans).

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#17

Post by OnlineGladiator »

drewrv wrote: post #15

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company should have that amount of power. The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

> The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

Luckily you don't need logic when you can just throw money at lobbying. Sadly, this is incredibly effective in the US today.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#18

Post by dr-detroit »

svachalek wrote: post #7
creaghpatr wrote: post #2

>Boz posted an explanation on Facebook, where he advertises the post as an organizational, internal call-to-debate. But while it's great to have a safe space for internal, organizational debates, it's still hugely concerning when that internal debate is whether we should all have a free and fair election in the U.S. Was Facebook having an internal debate over whether we should all have a free and fair election in the…

I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m…

You left out the part where they captured all the web traffic and they monetized toxic garbage "news"

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#20

Post by farisjarrah »

drewrv wrote: post #15

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company should have that amount of power. The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

While I agree Facebook is doing a bad job with regards to political advertising, I am actually really glad facebook isnt stepping in and deciding whats truthful or not. Does anyone really think that we should give Facebook any power over our political system or give them the power to be the gatekeepers of what political ads we see? I think facebook should do what twitter did and just totally get out of the political ads game, however, since theyre not, call me crazy but I am kinda glad they arent deciding whats "right" and whats "wrong". Facebook has already proved to us over and over that they don't know the difference between right and wrong and that they make decisions that are bad for society.
Post reply on HN