Adblock facebook ?
Not sufficient.
Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
291–300 of 371 posts
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#292>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…
It doesn't matter, this is a private company, if they don't want to fact check political ads then they should stop showing political ads. No one can make them do anything but it might be a public opinion win for Zuck for once and be good for the way people view Facebook. Twitter is right on this one.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#293Earlier 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…
A more accurate cost would be around $200/yr for a daily user [1]. US & Canada had 189 million daily users and a quarterly Ad revenue of 8.487 Billion dollars. That is $45 per user per quarter.
[1] https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3....
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I run a advocacy group in favor of asset forfeiture but don’t have money to pay Zuck, then what? Screw my advocacy group? You want folks with money to have “more free speech” and don’t see anything wrong with that?
>You want folks with money to have “more free speech” and don’t see anything wrong with that? Yes, I don't see anything wrong with that. If I choose to print 1,000 flyers to hand out, I am using money to amplify my voice. Do you see anything wrong with this? Facebook Ads are no different.
We should cease pretending scale does not matter. Also that analogies are useful. Your flyer analogy is not useful because it does not _replace_ another flyer. A clear analogy would be buying advertising space in a newspaper.
If you were to buy the entire newspaper's advertising space to amplify your voice I would definitely consider it an abuse of power and wrong.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you... Everyone seems to be forgetting that this is a 100% opt-in service. Why do we get to say what FB is obligated to do and to what standards they have to keep their website at?
Well, when it establishes a dominant position in the market using tactics that are no longer allowed, we do get a right to say that they should be broken up, or forced to start from scratch without their user data. My own two cents is that Facebook should be dismantled to restore competition, then be allowed to do whatever it wants.
Facebook should be dismantled because they effectively broke democracy.
From the earliest of its beginnings, one of the greatest flaws of democracy was masses being susceptible to manipulation, and Facebook massively amplified this. It has been repeatedly and reliably used for manipulation of voters with unprecedented effectiveness and on an unprecedented scale.
Trump and Brexit showed that even the oldest and most mature democracies are not impervious to such manipulation.
I was shocked how Facebook's Libra initiative quickly detracted people: all of a sudden, we're all discussing whether they should be allowed to run crypto currency, and nobody is talking about how they broke democracy. Almost as if the whole Libra thing is a giant distraction...
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who would pay it are the exact same people who are worth the most to advertise to. This is why you can’t pay to get a version of The NY Times that has no ads.
And yet I can pay to not see ads on Youtube and Twitch. Is there something different about video vs written content?
I don't know about twitch, but YouTube hemorrhages money and couldn't exist independently of Alphabet.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#297> "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.
They'd just be replaced by another company that offers the same stuff as FB for free.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#298The primary problem is that it's not illegal for politicians to lie to the electorate. Without solving that problem, we will always have sub-par leadership and questions about what is or is not a valid advertisement. In official capacity (under oath) it's illegal for us to lie to them. In their official capacity (under oath of office) they get to lie all day long, straight through their teeth. CEOs can't defraud thei…
It's not illegal to lie but it is required to attribute that lie to the political campaign making it per the FEC's attribution rules, and the hope is that people will be able to spot lies and call them out. IANAL but this is the general idea as I understand it.
To me, the problem is these kinds of sponsored posts undermine that by not enforcing the attribution, by being more ephemeral than TV or print ads, and by allowing specific enough targeting to exclude anyone who might call it out.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#299I agree with Zuckerberg on this one; improving transparency and policing the platform is the solution. Twitter doesn't have the answer for "what is a political ad" and I believe soon enough they will run into issues that will put in evidence their lack of foresight.
Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban
#300>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…
Maybe we’re conflating the meaning of the word free here. Advertising is not free as in beer, but maybe it should still be free as in speech? (ironically labeled in this case)