181–190 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've also found that my kids' school sometimes _only_ sends out notifications or surveys via Facebook, even though they have two other specific systems they pay for that are specifically made for parent/school communications.
A pubic school? This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think Zuck's statement makes more sense than Jack's, where Jack said that "democracy might break if we allow those ads" (not with these exact words). It's weird to see a CEO making a statement like that, like if it was his role to protect democracy. I think Zuck sounded more professional and centered in this case.
How is it NOT his role to protect democracy? Democracy thrives on freedom of information, and with an informed populace. If the democracy's populace is gaining massive quantities of information from Twitter, isn't Jack Dorsey then directly involved in being an arbiter of democracy? For better or worse, isn't it factually true that these tech-info companies are directly woven into the fabric of our democracy?
Sounds a little dystopian and authoritarian to me as well. Fair democracy is hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I'm mostly confused as to what sorts of free speech is being violated by not using ads? Parties can post on their facebook pages and comment the same way users can. Isn't that equal speech? What's the dimension I'm missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the media isn't covering their message because they're LYING, then the media is doing their job. The fact Zuckerberg thinks that people who are intentionally misleading people "deserve a voice" is ridiculous. These aren't little white lies, or a bending of the truth, they're bald-faced lies intended to confuse or misinform the voting public. I'm not sure why we're pretending they deserve the same platform as peopl…
Who gets to determine what the lies are? I think the following frequently-made assertions are misleading: (1) Women are paid 72 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men. (2) Rich people pay less taxes than the poor. (3) Blacks are being wantonly killed by the police in large numbers. However, I think that in a free country, progressives can make ads with such messages, and conservatives are free to debunk t…
We simultaneously fear the power of Facebook but then demand they become the final arbiter of the truth, censoring even the speech of our political leaders. Why did we think this was a good idea again? Ask China their opinion on the value of being the one to decide what is true.
I think most people just think Facebook ads should be held to same as older media like newspapers and tv that have to have an editor review the ad and approve it before it can be published. Facebook is being used as a disinformation platform and Zuckerberg thinks it’s more important to keep making money. I don’t think that trade off is worth what it’s doing to society. I think Facebook has a large share of the blame…
This is the kinda thing corps get fined billions of dollars for.
Earlier 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…
Earlier 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…
Claiming that we must be reliant on private corporations for free speech is a corruption of the very concept. I don't agree with your argument, but to the extent that there's any truth to it the remedy can only be to fix the underlying problem—not submitting to it. To be clear, my objection isn't to all online advertising but specifically to Zuckerberg defending Facebook's policy with an appeal to free speech. Obviou…
Democracy as a system dispowers the individual (what is a single voice in a sea of milions). It is perfectly rational to not vote (your single vote would never matter, while the time it takes to go vote will).
Since most people want to spend their lives infinity-scrolling a facebook feed, and for some reason political power can be derived from these people, then facebook will have power by deciding what these people get to see, and if it's not facebook then it's twitter, or google, or the ISP, or the department of the internet, or the TV channels, so on and so forth.
only 0.1% of people care about free platform.
>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…
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…
>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…
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…
To that end, I think your position is contradictory. If X group has a moral right to use their money to promote speech via ads, why shouldn't media owners have the same right to use their money to promote speech via their platforms?