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

Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 371 posts

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#331

Post by Barrin92 »

dantheman wrote: post #330
Barrin92 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically those of someone with the money to promote their voice. If I may jump in here, I live in a country where political advertisement is strictly regulated and almost all political debate takes place on public television, available to everyone, and there's a commitment to neutrality in reporting and equal representation of all parties. Now this…

There are those that are famous, those with a lot of time, those who work in the media, those who are already politicians, those that are popular .... why are their voices and reach allowed when those with money are not?

you may very well make the case that mainstream news suffers from the same disease.

There's an interesting study out there (I'll dig it up later if I find it), that finds that the average American has virtually no influence or voice on what is discussed in media. There is nothing civic or egalitarian about American media or politics any more, it's no surprise that it appears like a cynical spectacle. It is indeed all advertisers, famous people, full-time twitter agitators, and Fox and CNN.

The irony here is I think that the social platforms actually could be used to authentically promote common voices if they were designed with that commitment in mind. If the rules don't change for the owners, I don't see it happening.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#333

Post by kevinsundar »

hinkley wrote: post #310
kevinsundar wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does requiring facebook to fact-check (fact according to who?) take their power away? It just gives them more power.

Because that's been the social contract for hundreds or thousands of years, and we know they'll probably fuck it up anyway. The question is will they percolate to the top of the priority list? Small time offenders often get away with it. [edit:] if you ask me, which you kinda did, I think we're using a self-organizing system, where people self-select into active positions in society and then we cull the worst actors…

I really do want to hear what your opinion on this is but I'm having trouble following. I am of the opinion that letting facebook fact-check anything, let alone political speech, inherently lets them (or well a random low paid "fact-checker" reviewing ads somewhere) control what a huge mass of people see. Isn't that a ton of power?

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#334

Post by quarkral »

Traster wrote: post #203
quarkral wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds easy but in practice hard. You can run ads on political and social issues that directly correlate with one candidate's campaign. What about those ads? But then you could also be running ads to push a public issue such as climate change independent of anyone's campaign. How do you differentiate between the two?

People keep contending that it's difficult to differentiate what a political advert is, but actually that's the wrong question. You don't really need to ban political advertisements, you simply ban adverts from political organisations. The Federal government already has rules in place to determine what a political action committee is. So for a start you just ban all PACs, 501(c)(4|5|6)s and 527 organisations. That ba…

The reason it's difficult to differentiate is because currently media backlash is actually the only accountability any of these tech companies have for doing the right thing. For example, there's basically no government regulation for making sure companies encrypt your passwords properly; the only incentive to do so is because the media would make a joke out of the company if unencrypted passwords were ever leaked.

So you can ban advertisements from political organizations, but if a third-party or the Russians start running misinformation ads on climate change and pro-life, the media won't exactly recognize it as a "non political advertisement" and leave off.

In the election of 2016, most of the misinformation was not directly initiated by the political candidates. Your suggestion wouldn't affect any of the misinformation spread in 2016.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#335

Post by xmprt »

Lazare wrote: post #35
Traster wrote: post #4

>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…

Free speech doesn't mean you're free to force others to hear your point.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#337

Post by xmprt »

shaftway wrote: post #315
bryan_w wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on Facebook? Yes. It has a "Paid for by ____" header in addition to the sponsored designation

Yeah, but it's never "Paid for by Oil Companies Trying to Pollute the Environment". It's always some meaningless name that serves the underlying cause, like "Paid for by Citizens Concerned About Jobs"

That's a broader issue with PACs and whether lobbying of this form should be allowed.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#338

Post by xmprt »

bryan_w wrote: post #255
cj wrote: post #77

Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on Facebook? The main issue I have with this is how Facebook strategically blends advertisements (which is often political during election cycles) together with organic non-sponsored content. Anecdote: My 84 year old grandmother spends 1-2 hours per day scrolling through Facebook's news feed. When I watch her do it, she pays ZERO attention to why…

> Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on Facebook? Yes. It has a "Paid for by ____" header in addition to the sponsored designation

I now understand how to differentiate between the two but how would anyone in the right mind think that the average person would realize that "Paid for by" implies it's political. At least when they say it in TV ads, it's very clearly a political ad based on the abundance of context clues.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#339

Post by harryh »

shawndrost wrote: post #274
harryh wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a pretty clear difference between publishers which sell speech to people that want to buy it and advertisers that take money in return for putting speech in front of people automatically. Maybe both forms of money entangled speech are worthy of the same protections. But they are two different things.

As I understand the function of a publisher, it is predominantly about marketing and distribution, and putting a book in front of people who otherwise wouldn't have heard of it or bought it.

Yes, but publishers just give people the opportunity to buy something.

Advertisers put the speech in front of people whether they want to buy it or not.

Re: Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban

#340

Post by philipov »

fermenflo wrote: post #260
semiotagonal wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed It's not your feed, it's their feed; you're just the person eating it.

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?

Things stop being opt-in when too many people start using them. There's a point where private platforms become so big they begin to function as public platforms. At that point, not opting in becomes tantamount to becoming an off-grid prepper, or religious hermit. Participating in society is technically opt-in as well, but because it is tied into all parts of life, not opting in requires you to opt out.
Post reply on HN