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

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by jfengel »

DeathArrow wrote: post #48
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 thinks democracy and freedom are not compatible. >Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

Which is, I suppose, literally true. Any government exists to mediate conflicting rights, and that means limiting freedom.

For many self described libertarians, that conflict is to be decided entirely in favor of their liberties and everyone else's liberties don't matter. Democracy is inherently about everyone trying to have some freedom, which comes at a cost to Peter Thiel's, and apparently that's the only one that counts.

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

#52

Post by agileAlligator »

NilMostChill wrote: post #16
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.

i care little for whatever is going on here but you seem to be purposely ignoring the last part of the sentence. extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. edit: downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.

He means that welfare beneficiaries and women vote in way that is against his image of what a capitalist democracy should be.

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

#53

Post by NilMostChill »

agileAlligator wrote: post #52
NilMostChill wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i care little for whatever is going on here but you seem to be purposely ignoring the last part of the sentence. extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. edit: downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.

He means that welfare beneficiaries and women vote in way that is against his image of what a capitalist democracy should be.

That's an interpretation, sure, i'm not even arguing against it, i truly do not care either way.

All i was pointing out is that leaving out a section of a sentence you are trying to explain your interpretation of is not a good way to convey that you are arguing in good faith.

Especially when that section could be thought of as not neatly fitting in to the narrative you are trying to explain.

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

#54

Post by NilMostChill »

zilti wrote: post #43
NilMostChill wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i care little for whatever is going on here but you seem to be purposely ignoring the last part of the sentence. extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. edit: downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.

You really need to train your reading comprehension

Always up for some training.

What part of my reply stood out to you as the part that shows i didn't understand what i was reading ?

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

#55

Post by PeterisP »

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.

I am a bit confused about it being treated as a socially relevant issue - it definitely was a relevant socially sensitive issue back then, but that was 100 years ago, and now it's not an active issue - as far as I understand, women can vote in currently literally every country in the world which has voting; there are some countries where nobody can vote, but that's still treating women equally with respect to voting rights.

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

#56

Post by everdrive »

elaus wrote: post #27
everdrive wrote: post #21

I'm not sure how to feel about this. Nasty tracking is certainly possible without tracking cookies, and tracking cookies are actually quite easy to block & deal with. Other technologies which track you are not necessarily all that easy to prevent. It wouldn't necessarily be better if most companies moved away from tracking cookies.

> Nasty tracking is certainly possible without tracking cookies, and tracking cookies are actually quite easy to block & deal with. Are you replying to the wrong thread by chance? The article isn't about tracking or cookies at all.

I am, I'm sorry for completely losing track of where I was.

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

#57

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

jmopp wrote: post #44
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first I'm hearing about this, but "opposition to women's suffrage" seems like a significant misreading. The attitude of "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it", certainly can apply to voting too, and seems to be at work in this case.

That's the slippery slope people who want to take away rights exploit. Sure, you can believe women shouldn't vote. You can even go around telling people you believe women shouldn't vote. But just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. If you say you don't believe freedom and democracy are incompatible, I am absolutely going to judge you for it because it's a stupid belief for which there is no eviden…

I don't think it's a slippery slope.

I'll put it another way: I'm anti-Trump. By extension, I think people who vote for Trump exert a negative influence on society by casting their votes in his favor. It also happens that these voters are predominantly rural. I also don't think rural voters should be disenfranchised, and if Trump wins the election, so be it.

Part of the idea of democracy is that you do want your preferred party to win, but that doesn't automatically mean you're against all the other teams having the right to vote. It certainly can be the case that a demographic or rules change makes it harder for your team to win. That doesn't mean you are against that change, whether it's universal suffrage, proportional representation, etc.

Support for fair and legitimate elections are usually a stronger foundational principle than one's support for their own favorite party. Especially because their party's victory would be empty if it wasn't won legitimately.

As for whether libertarianism and democracy are at odds, I really don't know myself. I think it's fine for Thiel to have his own opinion on that.

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

#58

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

PeterisP wrote: post #55
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.

I am a bit confused about it being treated as a socially relevant issue - it definitely was a relevant socially sensitive issue back then, but that was 100 years ago, and now it's not an active issue - as far as I understand, women can vote in currently literally every country in the world which has voting; there are some countries where nobody can vote, but that's still treating women equally with respect to voting…

Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote* as of 2015, which is recent enough that there's probably still a significant fraction of the population that isn't enthusiastically on board.

* In local elections; they don't have national elections.

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

#59

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #58
PeterisP wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a bit confused about it being treated as a socially relevant issue - it definitely was a relevant socially sensitive issue back then, but that was 100 years ago, and now it's not an active issue - as far as I understand, women can vote in currently literally every country in the world which has voting; there are some countries where nobody can vote, but that's still treating women equally with respect to voting…

Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote* as of 2015, which is recent enough that there's probably still a significant fraction of the population that isn't enthusiastically on board. * In local elections; they don't have national elections.

> Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote as of 2015

Saudi Arabia is 0.018% of Facebook audience. Factoring in language differences and content geofencing and it'll be about a handful Saudis likely to see an ad for the game - all of them probably visiting the US.

So bring it home for us. How do 6 Saudis (of unknown opinion on voting)

transform a longstanding reality - that women vote

into an issue so sensitive that banning game ads is a reasonable response?

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

#60

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #59
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote* as of 2015, which is recent enough that there's probably still a significant fraction of the population that isn't enthusiastically on board. * In local elections; they don't have national elections.

> Women in Saudi Arabia only got the right to vote as of 2015 Saudi Arabia is 0.018% of Facebook audience. Factoring in language differences and content geofencing and it'll be about a handful Saudis likely to see an ad for the game - all of them probably visiting the US. So bring it home for us. How do 6 Saudis (of unknown opinion on voting) transform a longstanding reality - that women vote into an issue so sensiti…

I'm certainly not expressing the opinion that the policy is reasonable.
Post reply on HN