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

We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

news.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 353 posts

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#321

Post by [deleted] »

manigandham wrote: post #144
TomMckenny wrote: post #89

Earlier 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.

Absolutely not. Advertising is not bribery and the European region is nowhere near the freedom of speech principles of the US. It may feel the same, either because you have never said anything or have never been heard by anyone who cares, but there are countless examples of prosecution that would be summarily dismissed here in the States. Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. Athletes c…

[deleted]

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#322

Post by jklein11 »

StreamBright wrote: post #310
jklein11 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm but I can kind of see the case that Facebook is making here. For example, if a drunk person behind the wheel of a Ford does a tremendous amount of damaage, no one goes after Ford for not preventing it. Facebook is a tool. Is it Facebook's responsibility to make sure that everyone uses it ethically? I can understand putting in measures to make sure that everyone is using it legally and hav…

Drunk people do not install presidents.

Neither do ads on the internet. Donald Trump's presidency did not mesh well with a large population of the US's perception of reality. It is much easier to say "the boogey man caused this to happen" vs "my understanding of the world around me was inaccurate."

I'm not saying that there weren't campaigns that intentionally mislead people or that those campaigns aren't a bad thing. I do think that blaming the Trump Presidency on the Russians is overly simplistic and is an easy way to ignore a real divide in our country.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#323

Post by jklein11 »

illumin8 wrote: post #312
jklein11 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm but I can kind of see the case that Facebook is making here. For example, if a drunk person behind the wheel of a Ford does a tremendous amount of damaage, no one goes after Ford for not preventing it. Facebook is a tool. Is it Facebook's responsibility to make sure that everyone uses it ethically? I can understand putting in measures to make sure that everyone is using it legally and hav…

Horrible analogy. If Ford had to approve every ignition/engine start request and they had a breathalyzer installed in every vehicle that would send the blood alcohol level to Ford's API and required a signed response before the engine would start, maybe you're getting close... Facebook put in a "vetting" process and requires everyone to go through it to publish ads. On the other hand, anyone with enough cash can buy…

Okay, maybe a better analogy would be with seatbelts. It doesn't seem like it would a huge engineering feat to prevent a car from starting if the driver isn't wearing a seatbelt. If someone dies in a car crash because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, is the car manufacturer at fault?

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#324

Post by jklein11 »

yorwba wrote: post #318
count wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a newspaper runs an advertisement that turns out to be false (say, a fake claim about a thing for sale), is it the newspaper or the advertiser who's at fault?

The advertiser. But if someone sues the advertiser and it turns out that the person listed by the newspaper as the advertiser isn't actually the advertiser, it's the newspaper's fault for not verifying their customers.

So it is the newspaper's fault that their customer lied to them?

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#325

Post by sabizmil »

jklein11 wrote: post #324
yorwba wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advertiser. But if someone sues the advertiser and it turns out that the person listed by the newspaper as the advertiser isn't actually the advertiser, it's the newspaper's fault for not verifying their customers.

So it is the newspaper's fault that their customer lied to them?

There are certain industries that have requirements for vetting customers, and if those requirements are not met then responsibility falls on the company and not the customer.

If a car manufacturer distributes a car that did not go through any inspections and it turns out the brake lines were hooked up incorrectly and consequently causes damage or hurts the customer then it's neither the customer or the dealership who are at fault, but the manufacturer for failing to properly inspect the product that they are making.

In the same sense, if a bar sells beer to someone without asking for their ID and they turn out to be underage, or a gun store sells a weapon to a convicted felon without performing a background check, liability falls on the company and not the customer.

I am not sure if this should apply to newspapers in respect to their advertising, but there are examples where this line of thinking does apply and this might be one of them.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#326

Post by dillondoyle »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #263
dillondoyle wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not offering a solution. Though I do think that role should be left to police, government, and regulators. Now that FB and Google are collecting affidavits and scans of IDs, it is much easier for the actual rule keepers to hold law breakers accountable.

'organic' content is much harder and I don't have solution, just that I take a more 'stopping the few bad actors, != not worth affecting the mostly good' view (than it seems the vast majority) when weighing the potential effect on actual political speech any solution has

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#327

Post by Spearchucker »

JdeBP wrote: post #272
Spearchucker wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about other EU member states or the EU itself, but in Germany free speech is intentionally not a right, because of the German right to live free of abuse by others. Speech can obviously be used as a form of abuse.

Herewith article 5 of the Basic Law of Germany stating the right to freedom of expression, one of the several fundamental rights enshrined in the Basic Law right up front, before anything else. * https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen... Enjoy.

Thank you, I enjoyed it greatly. Freedom of expression (one's right to express one's beliefs) is not freedom of speech.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#328

Post by Dylan16807 »

manigandham wrote: post #316
JdeBP wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how it works. You are confusing case law with what k_sh actually claimed, which was specific exceptions. There do exist U.S. constitutional provisions with specific exceptions, such as the 5th Amendment. The 1st Amendment is not one of them. Indeed, it is famous for being neither specific nor having clear exceptions. Contrast with the Basic Law of Germany article 5, that has already come up in this di…

Incorrect. What is being discussed are the applicable rules to citizens today, and the cumulative legislation states that there are exceptions. We do not follow only the constitution and bill of rights, otherwise what do you think the thousands of other laws are doing exactly? Real exceptions exist, regardless of whether they are written in the original amendment text or in rulings afterward.

The exceptions are 'real', but they're fuzzy, they change over time, and they're not in the constitution itself. They're the opposite of 'specific'.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#329

Post by slededit »

scythe wrote: post #110
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

The freedom Facebook enjoys is not really the freedom of speech . It is the freedom of the press , the freedom to publish. Same amendment, different purpose. What is less clear is: to what extent is Facebook the press ? The press, in 1789, could not send you push notifications. It was not gamified with the intent of increasing user engagement. It was not interwoven with a person's private communications with their fr…

You don't consider delivering a paper to my door to be a form of "push delivery"? At least with facebook I installed the app. These local newspapers/flyer delivery vehicles don't have any business relationship with me at all.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#330

Post by hawkice »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #269
hawkice wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're already hitting a database, you can add a column for whatever information you want. I've heard people are spooked by having too many columns, but more spooked than having essentially untestable production IDs in their code? No thanks.
Post reply on HN