[deleted]
Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
131–140 of 181 posts
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#132Reddit is one of the most potent places where opinion-shaping has been happening. I've been getting ads for Reddit everywhere recently (even thought I've been a reddit user for about 20 years). r/worldnews is pretty tightly controlled, it's a default subreddit meaning 50+ million people see the posts submitted in this subreddit, and most critically, the ensuing conversation in comments which goes only in one directio…
That sub is pretty much controlled by Zionist. If you criticize Israel in any way shape or form, you'll get a permanent ban.
"controlled by zionists"
Interestingly, every place Qatar doesn't pour billions into spreading propaganda sewage suddenly becomes "controlled by Zionists."
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You could create a law that says regional/national advertising requires a company or person be in that jurisdiction and that they must hold $$$ in bond as a guard against false claims. This would prevent foreign ads targeting domestic users, and/or give you an organization to sue domestically. In this case, it's likely that the Israeli govt would work through a US based org, and that in court that case would likely f…
Who has standing to sue? We already see the current President using lawsuits to allow media companies to bribe him.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#134> 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…
Are you saying google does not apply editorial oversight on ads they run? To the best of my knowledge google does restrict who can advertise with them, and their decisions are final and not subject to judicial oversight. In that context, what google chooses to allow and what they ban is newsworthy. In this specific case, even moreso, since the ads violate google’s own rules.
Ad networks apply editorial oversight with respect to their own published policies* I am not aware of any ad network policies that approach the subject of "what is true" or "what is propaganda". They also apply restrictions to what they are legally liable for which is fairly narrow today (I.e. child porn or harmful substances to minors, etc)
Forcing ad networks to be the main arbiters of what is true vs. propaganda is a huge step towards an Orwellian society.
* some policies related to the concept of truth are one dealing with scams or fraudsters. Even then, it's only the scope of "does this advertiser actually provide the service they claim to be" or not, which is way more objective than anything related to war, religion, or the middle east.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#135This article brings up important questions about digital influence in wartime, but it's hard to ignore how one-sided the framing is when it comes to Israel.
There's barely a mention of the October 7 massacre, where over 1,200 Israelis were murdered and hundreds taken hostage some of them are children. That’s the context behind Israel’s messaging. Leaving that out gives a very distorted picture of why these campaigns exist in the first place.
The article criticizes Israel for running ads that target UNRWA, but completely skips the fact that more than a dozen UNRWA staff were accused of actively participating in the massacre and holding hostages, That allegation was serious enough for countries like the US, Germany, the UK, and Australia to suspend their funding. That’s not “disinformation,” that’s a real international response.
There’s also zero mention of Hamas’s own propaganda operations. No discussion of how they use Telegram, TikTok, or social platforms to push graphic and often fake content to manipulate global opinion. If we're talking about the weaponization of information, how is that not relevant?
Instead, the article spends thousands of words dissecting Israel’s side while ignoring everything else. It presents only one narrative and wraps it in a moral argument that conveniently excludes key facts and context.
A fair critique would examine how all sides are using digital tools in modern conflicts, not just the one the author disagrees with politically. Otherwise, it’s not an analysis. It’s just a well-written piece of propaganda in itself.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#136> 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…
Google and Meta penalized and curbed Covid vaccine misinformation. No reason they cannot do the same with state-sponsored Zionazi propaganda.
[flagged]
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#137> 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…
Are you saying google does not apply editorial oversight on ads they run? To the best of my knowledge google does restrict who can advertise with them, and their decisions are final and not subject to judicial oversight. In that context, what google chooses to allow and what they ban is newsworthy. In this specific case, even moreso, since the ads violate google’s own rules.
Don't fall into the trap of "everything not mandatory is prohibited".
Google doesn't really want scam ads. It doesn't make a lot of sense to penalize them for removing some of them just because their process isn't perfect; removing them doesn't have to be banned.
But if you make not removing them mandatory, you're replacing the justice system with a private corporation, which is pretty crazy. If the police accuse you of a crime, they have to prove it to a judge and jury. You can appeal to a higher court. Google doesn't have that. And if you add liability for not removing something, they're going to err on the side of removing things they ought not to, with no recourse for the victims. Competitor wants you out of the search results? Report it to Google and you're out, because they get a billion complaints and removing them by default is safer than getting prosecuted for missing a real one.
The correct solution is to let Google remove things that are bad without punishing them for not being perfect -- maybe even err on the side of imposing (civil) liability for removing things they shouldn't instead of not removing things they should -- and rely on the criminal justice system for going after the criminals.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#138UNRWA is compromised as hell, ofc it must go, so it's a pretty good use case for ethical ads usage. Definitely not a reason to enforce an additional censorship.
Is Israel your source?
I just read the Guardian report noting that UNRWA fired nine staff members to “preserve the integrity” of their mission. They weren’t punished for refusing to participate in any wrongdoing—instead, they were let go because investigations suggested they might have been involved in the October 7 attack
Comments that suggest this was some kind of cover-up or rewriting of history only hurt their credibility. Implying that an entire group is spinning the past—even two years on—comes off as divisive. Let’s stick to the facts, not broad-brush accusations.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/05/nine-u...
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Banks don't determine if you are a terrorist or what not. They comply with the order when a judge gives them a lawful order to freeze accounts. I think it's okay to deputize corporations for the execution of the law in the digital world. You really, really don't want the federal government or mega corps to determine what is the "truth" vs. "propaganda". It's way too much power in society to be centralized. The de…
>The Banks don't determine if you are a terrorist or what not. They comply with the order when a judge gives them a lawful order to freeze accounts. How do you think this works in reality when the people getting sanctioned are trying to bypass the sanctions by creating shell companies and false identities? You either have a totally ineffective sanctions regime because it can be trivially be bypassed by setting up new…
I'm familiar with how sanctions work wrt advertisers / publishers. It would be totally fine if a court or similar institution said "here is a list of propaganda orgs, please limit what ads they can buy in our jurisdiction" and the ad networks were authorized to find all of their shell companies associated with those named entities. But that is not what the article is advocating for.
I'm objecting to the notion that mega corp ad networks are the best organization to determine what is truth vs. propaganda in our society.
Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars
#140> 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…
Are you OK with spreading genocide-denial propaganda?
You mean US history books * ? It's not my place to decide. It's a free society.
* from my PoV, US history books taught in classrooms deny or downplay the genocide of native American people, so of which were my ancestors. But I don't want society to try and use mega corps to push my PoV.