Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, things just refer to him as fbid 4.
Who are 1, 2 and 3?
fbid 1 is former zuck. fbid 2 is Facebook itself (the software, not the Facebook's own page in FB). fbid 3 is yet another former test account.
We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
261–270 of 353 posts
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#262I am appalled at how bad Facebook did here but buried at the very end of the article Vice does indicate that they needed to provide a valid traceable drivers license and last four of a (maybe?) matching SSN. This means that had they intended to actually publish the ads they would have put some real person on the hook (assuming the submitted data is actually checked against something). Still too easy but for the first…
>In order to run a “Paid for by” disclosure on Facebook, you must first submit the name to the company for approval, along with an image of a valid driver’s license and the last four digits of your Social Security number. Paragraph in question. Are the driver's licences they used not the ones of the Senators? Or maybe they photoshopped them, or something along those lines? I'm a bit unhappy at the lack of elaboration…
Yes, it's difficult to follow exactly what they did. This:
> We used 10 fake Facebook pages with no content, and changed the “paid for” disclosure after each senator was approved.
Makes it sound to me like they got approval using a real identity and then changed the now-approved account to use a different name.
Methodology aside, though, Facebook shouldn't be showing that they verified the identity if they did not verify the identity. Unless the methodology was "we stole the identities of some senators" or "we cracked their passwords", this is a failure a another breach of trust on Facebook's part.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting to hear your thoughts as a person whose work requires to interface with the political-ad-vetting process of web giants. If you were a representative of the public (with interests in safeguarding the authenticity of information promoted to individuals of the public), would you endorse a difficult google like vetting process or a superficial, lenient vetting process adopted by Facebook?
I can understand the public interest. I wouldn't mind a vetting process that works; google's just doesn't at least for us. The time not up with ads === censoring political speech IMHO and to me political speech is sacrosanct. The tradeoff isn't worth it. But also I have probably an extreme view out of the norm for most here. I view politics as almost capitalistic (not just in that I make money doing it) but that it's…
>> Though in my 'theory' of political competition I acknowledge it's very hard to fight back against 'fake' and nation-state opponents.
So what's your solution then? Even less moderation?
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#264I am appalled at how bad Facebook did here but buried at the very end of the article Vice does indicate that they needed to provide a valid traceable drivers license and last four of a (maybe?) matching SSN. This means that had they intended to actually publish the ads they would have put some real person on the hook (assuming the submitted data is actually checked against something). Still too easy but for the first…
>In order to run a “Paid for by” disclosure on Facebook, you must first submit the name to the company for approval, along with an image of a valid driver’s license and the last four digits of your Social Security number. Paragraph in question. Are the driver's licences they used not the ones of the Senators? Or maybe they photoshopped them, or something along those lines? I'm a bit unhappy at the lack of elaboration…
In any case, senators aren't actually running ads, their staff are. So it requires a real background check
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#265"In announcing new transparency efforts or tools to combat foreign influence, Facebook included a caveat. “These changes will not prevent abuse entirely. We’re up against smart, creative and well-funded adversaries who change their tactics as we spot abuse,” Leathern wrote. But we believe that they will help prevent future interference in elections on Facebook. And it is why they are so important.” But posing as 100…
That's probably one of the only people they could actually be sure wasn't buying Facebook ads. Whereas a senator buying Facebook ads is, in itself, quite likely. Not really a fair comparison.
Why? I am sure many other humans are named Mark Zuckerberg as well. Their life is probably very complicated now...
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#266Just watch Frontline's The Facebook Dilemma
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.
> It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. In light of this recent EU case, I would tend to disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
The ECtHr is not the EU, and this only means that the supranational court did not override national law, as the states are given a wide margin of appreciation:
> [Freedom of expression] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#268Why even allow a "Paid For By" as an option to everyone. I imagine for all senators, Facebook has an ad rep that has been assigned to their media strategy team. That rep could then assign a user or group of users that are known ad buyers for the senator and flip a switch in the background that adds the "Paid For By" message.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Test accounts which ended up getting deleted before (presumably) auth worked.
Holy smokes I just had flashbacks to working at a place that tested things in production and ended up with a couple of these production-db IDs in the code. Shudders
Your codebase only has a couple?
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#270"In announcing new transparency efforts or tools to combat foreign influence, Facebook included a caveat. “These changes will not prevent abuse entirely. We’re up against smart, creative and well-funded adversaries who change their tactics as we spot abuse,” Leathern wrote. But we believe that they will help prevent future interference in elections on Facebook. And it is why they are so important.” But posing as 100…
That's probably one of the only people they could actually be sure wasn't buying Facebook ads. Whereas a senator buying Facebook ads is, in itself, quite likely. Not really a fair comparison.
Found the Facebook employee. This clearly demonstrates their priorities and applied technical competence around the matter.