Always remember: Zuckerberg is devoid of ethics. He'd eat your child if it made him a profit.
Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
171–180 of 371 posts
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#172Just ban all political ads.
Just ban all ads.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements." My free speech rights include the right to pay for an advertisement to get across my message or to join with others to do so. Progressives dominate the media and academia and want to shut down other outlets.
>Progressives dominate the media Don't y'all have Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting?
So you agree that all other media is dominated by progressives and everyone else should just settle Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting?
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#174This whole thing is one huge advocacy to remove money from politics in every way we can.
If money is speech, only the rich are heard!
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#175>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…
"Mr. Paine! I submit that your pamphlet, _Common Sense_, is not free speech! If it was part of your free speech, surely your printers must print my pamphlets despite the fact that I have no money to pay for them." — some colonial judge in the service of the Crown, probably
Your subsidized access to freedom is ovah:
https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/11/cable-franchise-fee-limit...
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#176Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on Facebook? The main issue I have with this is how Facebook strategically blends advertisements (which is often political during election cycles) together with organic non-sponsored content. Anecdote: My 84 year old grandmother spends 1-2 hours per day scrolling through Facebook's news feed. When I watch her do it, she pays ZERO attention to why…
> To me, the primary issue is that Facebook does not adequately differentiate organic content from sponsored content. This is a classic isolated demand for rigor. “Sponsored” is exactly as prominent on Facebook as “op-ed” is on newspapers and “advertisement” is on whole sponsored segments of magazines. In all cases that word is there at the top in a normal font. What else are they supposed to do, make it flashing and…
The content on Facebook is intentionally made to look like a post from your friend. Advertising in newspapers was always clearly differentiated or even sectioned off.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#177> "Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates," he added. Another tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful to give them more of a voice than the average person, is another way to look at it. Facebook are profiting from both sides. They’re a news site that’s simultaneously FOX News and MSNBC al…
Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc. I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their network/contacts that FB provides.
You're underestimating Facebook's revenue by an order of magnitude.
If they charged $3 per month they would be making less money than they are now, even if nobody quit because it's no longer free.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc. I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their network/contacts that FB provides.
$3 isn't enough. It would need to be well above $30/yr. Average revenue per user in the US/Canada is $26.76 [0] per user per year. Globally, the average is over $6. I'd wager a bet that the ARPU for users willing to pay $30/yr for no ads is even greater than $27 - likely above $100 - because the only people who would pay extra to remove ads are people with disposable income (which are usually the exact people adverti…
[deleted]
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
I notice you don't address his actual point though. If, let's say, a group advocating for the abolishment of asset forfeiture wants to communicate their message, and the media is not covering it, it would be natural for them to try paying for ads, and the obvious place to put ads are on social media, since that's where the eyeballs are (cf, the collapse of the news media). If social media bans those ads then while th…
I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to pro…
Just because I’m subscribed to someone on social media doesn’t mean they show up in my feed. That change happened long ago. It’s only guaranteed to show up if they pay.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#180More broadly, Congress has failed to act with respect to campaign finance reform. Twitter's response gives me (some) hope that there could be a grass roots, free market reform of sorts.
Fundraising becomes slightly less important if you can't spend the money online. Not sure of the overall effect, as TV providers are unlikely to turn away the lucrative ad spend.