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

Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 276 posts

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#201

Post by alex43578 »

xuhu wrote: post #199
crazygringo wrote: post #196

I mean, I don't like Meta at all , but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests. It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the mo…

Online stores don't remove 1-star reviews of their products from their store. Do they ?

Yes, they very frequently do.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#202

Post by xorcist »

crazygringo wrote: post #196

I mean, I don't like Meta at all , but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests. It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the mo…

This may sound reasonable but isn't at all how newspapers are run. You can absolutely buy an ad in the New York Times criticizing the New York Times. Within reason of course, as you said the are private entities allowed to take on any customers they want, but in general newspapers hold journalistic integrity as an ideal and will allow most things as long as they aren't defamatory, unethical or downright illegal.

The ad sellers and the journalists are normally separate and will not interfer much with one another's work. It also helps that they never say no to money. I don't know about the New York Times specifically but similar things have happened many times in other newspapers, and there is such a thing as a paid editorial. Those are usually clearly marked as such, but it's basically the same thing.

(However, there may be other reasons why you might want to go with a competitor instead, and not pay the newspaper you hate $100k.)

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#203

Post by lurk2 »

jerf wrote: post #190

At the risk of going against the gestalt, Facebook openly and publicly rejecting the ads is actually one of the better outcomes. They could have just put their thumbs on the scale, deprioritizing them, serving them to people they think are least likely to bite, etc. Lying about the number of times it was served because, after all, who can check? Many of us suspect the ad platforms already do this pretty routinely thr…

> It isn't reasonable to ask a platform to host content that is literally about suing them

Explicit rejection is better than opacity but better still is public accountability. Meta’s properties have a combined userbase that amounts to just over 1 in 4 people on earth; these platforms should have been regulated as utilities a long time ago. Suppose I wanted to run ad campaigns advocating for antitrust legislation targeting social media companies and ended up getting booted off of all of the major platforms; what feasible method is there for me to advance these ideas that could possibly compete with the platforms’ own abilities to influence public opinion?

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#205

Post by nutjob2 »

elAhmo wrote: post #156

We can effectively trace all of the problems we have today in a global scale back to social media.

I'd say 'social problems', but otherwise entirely true.

One of the strangest things I find is that people will spend serious money to buy a house somewhere they don't have to be exposed to the great unwashed yet will happily expose their brains to the worst of the worst via social media.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#206

Post by 6thbit »

Thought it was clickbait/circumstantial but they are quoting an actual spokesperson saying they are doing it on purpose !!

> "We're actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them," a Meta spokesperson tells Axios.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#207

Post by crazygringo »

indymike wrote: post #200
crazygringo wrote: post #196

I mean, I don't like Meta at all , but what do you expect? If you want to run a full-page in the New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, they're going to refuse to run it as well. Private companies generally don't publish things that run counter to their interests. It would certainly be interesting if we wanted legislation to force private companies who provide paid ad space to publish ads that paid the mo…

> New York Times that criticizes the New York Times, This has happened. > the government to decide what is allowed to be banned and what isn't, This is a civil lawsuit where people are trying to a) prove they were harmed and b) be compensated for that harm. The government is just the referee. > Meta is removing these ads, because pretty much any advertising platform would do the same about ads that criticized it. Whi…

> This has happened.

Source?

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#208

Post by Legend2440 »

engeljohnb wrote: post #185
Legend2440 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the problems? Really?

The words "scale back to" are vague, but I'm struggling to think of any current global problems that weren't at least exacerbated by social media.

Then you need to think a little harder.

You have one thing on your mind - "social media bad" - and it is poisoning your ability to see the complexity in the world. There is rarely a single cause for anything, and there is never a single cause for everything.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#209

Post by ethanrutherford »

wongarsu wrote: post #119
rokkamokka wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hundred million identical court cases might not be too good for the legal system

Isn't that trivially fixed by raising court costs (that should go to whoever loses the suit) to cover the cost of judges, jury, admin expenses etc? I don't get the impression that this would make the justice system that much more prohibitively expensive than it already is, and would allow the legal system to scale to the case load

No, because the limitation is not money. More money does not magically make the humans in the profession be able to handle higher case-loads, nor magically produce new lawyers and judges. The bottleneck is time that each case takes to be properly and thoroughly adjudicated, and neither "more money" nor "more people" can accelerate that. While it's certainly correct to say that more staff could handle a larger number of cases, a. more staff = more cases, but more money doesn't speed up those cases, so there's still not really anything to be gained in terms of efficiency by increasing individual case costs. And b. if the solution was as simple as "hire more judges", it would have happened already.

Courts aren't lacking in budget to hire more people. They're lacking in people available to hire, with the specific expertise that they need to fill any gaps. The legal profession, at least in the US, consistently has some of the lowest unemployment rates across the board. Unlike over here in the tech sector, the scarcity is in available talent, rather than available jobs.

Re: Meta removes ads for social media addiction litigation

#210

Post by ethanrutherford »

Legend2440 wrote: post #208
engeljohnb wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The words "scale back to" are vague, but I'm struggling to think of any current global problems that weren't at least exacerbated by social media.

Then you need to think a little harder. You have one thing on your mind - "social media bad" - and it is poisoning your ability to see the complexity in the world. There is rarely a single cause for anything, and there is never a single cause for everything.

Hyperbole is a thing that exists. It is also rare that anyone says anything that is meant to be taken 100% literally.
Post reply on HN