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

Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

boardgamewire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#31

Post by outofpaper »

layoffdenial wrote: post #28

From someone who worked on this program at Meta before getting laid off: the ads aren't banned. Ads about social issues (including the right to vote -- which like it or not is an active issue in some of the world) are more sensitive than others. They need a disclaimer so that it's transparent who is paying for the ads, which is literally in the error message in the screenshot.

Yes. Anyone familiar with Meta adversity policies can see that this article is grasping at straws and ignoring the transparency policy. Anyone can browse through the Facebook Ad Library and see hundreds of thousands of these cases. Teams often have the blocked ads back up and running with the disclaimer n both versions are visible in. The Library.

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#32

Post by lupusreal »

fmbb wrote: post #15
agileAlligator wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is what he said. Welfare beneficiaries and women are two groups libertarians find are tough constituencies to appeal to, and both of these groups have increased in size since 1920.

The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.

There is a leap between "X is bad for me" and "X should be banned". Some people make that leap automatically without even realizing it and assume that everybody else makes that leap too. So for instance, if I say "Soda rots teeth" some people will become indignant, "So you want soda banned?? People have a right to drink what they want you tyrant!"

The trouble is that generally people don't make this leap automatically, and simply noting a problem doesn't come with an implied "therefore ban it." Generally the people who do automatically make this leap have authoritarian mindsets, for whom personal preferences and public policy are nigh inseparable. Watch out for these kind of people, they would likely impose their preferences on you if they ever gain power over you, without even thinking about it. The emperor doesn't care for pre-tattered jeans, therefore he bans them for everybody else too; not a good sort of man to have in charge.

Now, the pertinent question is which of these sorts is Peter Thiel? When this self-espoused libertarian says "X is bad for me" does that necessarily imply that it should be banned for everybody else as well? Is there evidence for him behaving in a way that betrays this kind of authoritarian mindset?

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#33

Post by master-lincoln »

somedude895 wrote: post #23
fmbb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.

He doesn't say either of those things. Considering the context of a pro-libertarian text, what it means is that the capitalism part of "capitalist democracy" is losing significance as the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy. But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.

> the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy

What indicative changes have there been that make you believe this?

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#34

Post by master-lincoln »

gmadsen wrote: post #29
fmbb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.

in what way? I think we collectively figured out democracy doesn't work a few thousand years ago. That's why we have a democratic republic.

Is your democratic republic not a democracy? I don't understand your point

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#35

Post by lupusreal »

oblio wrote: post #24
somedude895 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't say either of those things. Considering the context of a pro-libertarian text, what it means is that the capitalism part of "capitalist democracy" is losing significance as the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy. But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.

> the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy. The US is doing no such thing :-)

That position is Peter Thiel's apparent perspective as judged by somedude895, not a claim being made by somedude895 himself.

Since Peter Thiel is a libertarian, it's quite reasonable to surmise that he believes America is moving in the direction of social democracy. And if he has in mind the shifting political preferences of younger generations of Americans, I personally think it's a reasonable position to take. Public polling shows that more funding and reform for social programs is increasingly popular with younger Americans.

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#36

Post by ETH_start »

master-lincoln wrote: post #33
somedude895 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't say either of those things. Considering the context of a pro-libertarian text, what it means is that the capitalism part of "capitalist democracy" is losing significance as the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy. But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.

> the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy What indicative changes have there been that make you believe this?

Social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...

It seems endemic to democratic states.

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#37

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

layoffdenial wrote: post #28

From someone who worked on this program at Meta before getting laid off: the ads aren't banned. Ads about social issues (including the right to vote -- which like it or not is an active issue in some of the world) are more sensitive than others. They need a disclaimer so that it's transparent who is paying for the ads, which is literally in the error message in the screenshot.

Disclaimer and identity validation.

Presumably because they want to make it a bit harder for malicious foreign influence operations to run divisive ad campaigns.

Honestly, identity validation should probably be required for _all_ ads, given how many scams you can find there nowadays and how bad actors just show up with the next sockpuppet once caught. Being trigger-happy on requiring identity validation is the next best thing.

Given how clearly it's stated even in the screenshot shown in the article, I wonder if neither the creator nor BoardGameWire can read, or both are just trying to stir up drama (rather than addressing the issue) because it's much better free advertisement, or they tried that but that crucial fact got completely omitted from the article.

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#38

Post by PeterisP »

otteromkram wrote: post #6

ELI5 - Why does a successful board game need to source funding for a second round of printing?

Working capital and cash flow - the majority of a board game's expenses are literally just the physical manufacturing of the items, you need to pay all that up front before you have anything to sell, and you need to guess how much you'll sell because you're only doing a single run, not a continuous manufacturing, so you can't easily make more if you run out and if you make too much, you're stuck with worthless inventory.

Preorders make total sense for board games because of these issues, so that you make as much as there is actual demand and get the money up front to fund the manufacturing, and especially for a reprint of a successful ones because then it's not a cat in the bag but customers can reasonably know what they're getting in the end.

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#39

Post by poulpy123 »

oblio wrote: post #11
spacebanana7 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The essay doesn't express opposition to women's suffrage. He just says that women are electorally tough for libertarians. E.g Without expressing opposition to the suffrage of the elderly, I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like.

> Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

not that he manifestly want to remove the right to vote equally to men and women who vote wrong

Re: Facebook bans ads for Votes for Women boardgame, claims "sensitive social issue"

#40

Post by poulpy123 »

gmadsen wrote: post #29
fmbb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.

in what way? I think we collectively figured out democracy doesn't work a few thousand years ago. That's why we have a democratic republic.

never understood why conservative and libertarians americans want to make a difference between republic and democracy, it is literally in the definition of "republic" that it should be a democracy
Post reply on HN