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

Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#161

Post by ehnto »

jpadkins wrote: post #57
_Algernon_ wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ok, call it theft of services. You used the service but blocked how the creator makes money on the service. Is it really different from someone who runs out of a barber or restaurant?

Yes, the restaurant is not tracking me across the city, and it does not contain malware (although I guess you could get food poisoning).

It would be amorale if these services were not exploiting everyone they can, including the creators.

The better analogy would be, is it okay to walk out on a barber who is spying on your phone, coughing in your face, and won't stop trying to convince you to buy his buddies shampoo or vote for their political party.

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#163

Post by crazybonkersai »

jpadkins wrote: post #55

> 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 thing is that Google already is doing exactly that. Login to adsense and behold the following message: Due to the war in Ukraine, we will pause monetization of content that exploits, dismisses, or condones the war.

This has been in place for as long the war has been going on.

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#164

Post by philipallstar »

snapcaster wrote: post #95
philipallstar wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me the moral difference between that and saying that you don't believe you have a moral obligation to Porsche dealerships?

Porsche dealerships aren't trying to brainwash me. I see advertising companies as an adversary and I don't owe enemies anything

But it's not the advertising company you're denying revenue from. It's the website you're visiting, who've chosen to pay for the content you're happy to take via advertising.

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#165

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

normalaccess wrote: post #90
loudmax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but not to the same degree. The disagreement is on which side is worse.

They take turns.

Ah remember when Obama sent soldiers into US cities to soft launch a civil war, good times

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#166

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #5
delichon wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment prevents prohibiting it by law. If one party decided not to use social media to get their message out, the other party would get a huge advantage. Even if the parties agreed to leave that battlefield (a nice fantasy), they couldn't enforce it on their own candidates. So it would require a revolution or divine intervention to stop.

The amendments aren't god's laws passed to George Washington on Mt. Rushmore. We can change them if we feel it's appropriate. Commenter isn't making the case that the action is illegal, he's saying it's dystopian that the Government is making such blatant use of targeted media. And I agree.

We actually can't pass new amendments, it would require the red states to cooperate and there's more of them because they vote by land instead of by person

Same reason we're stuck with gerrymandering and the electoral college and the Senate and the misapportioned House and a generally dumb implementation of elections

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#167

Post by snapcaster »

philipallstar wrote: post #164
snapcaster wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porsche dealerships aren't trying to brainwash me. I see advertising companies as an adversary and I don't owe enemies anything

But it's not the advertising company you're denying revenue from. It's the website you're visiting, who've chosen to pay for the content you're happy to take via advertising.

Again, i do not feel bad for the allies of my enemies

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#168

Post by sniffers »

dizlexic wrote: post #123
sniffers wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oooooof. Yeah, we should definitely let governments pipe their propaganda directly into every surface in our lives constantly. Surely that's something that's healthy and good for all of us. Governments have no incentive to lie and have no power to buy out all the bandwidth. "Well, at least I made money on the government shutting down discussion" is deeply messed up.

I love this moronic take because it's governments that will enforce what information is deemed as propaganda. 10/10 cognitive disconnect.

No, you are being thick. The governments are issuing the propaganda. Read the post again.

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#169

Post by dizlexic »

sniffers wrote: post #168
dizlexic wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this moronic take because it's governments that will enforce what information is deemed as propaganda. 10/10 cognitive disconnect.

No, you are being thick. The governments are issuing the propaganda. Read the post again.

If you can't think around this corner I can't help you,

Who will prohibit it? Magical Gnomes?

If you say the UN let me remind you that the UN is comprised of Governments, the majority of which are considered autocracies.

So in short, you want dictatorships worldwide to be empowered to define and control speech.

Sounds... Great...

Also If you'd like we could go into the ineffectiveness of the UN in general, but I'm not going to spend the time typing all of that out.

edit: fixed a missing word

Re: Weaponizing Ads: How Google and Facebook Ads Are Used to Wage Propaganda Wars

#170

Post by PeterStuer »

jpadkins wrote: post #71
conover wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

That is not how KYC works. Every account gets screened against hundreds of lists, not just of 'criminals', but of people deemed 'sensitive'. Once you get on such a list, good luck finding any bank.
Post reply on HN