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

Facebook's PR feels broken

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#61

Post by elpool2 »

iso1824 wrote: post #8
quanticle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific pol…

Newspapers, Radio, and Television all have a named editor who is responsible for output. Facebook doesn't.

Why does it matter if they have an editor?

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#63

Post by creaghpatr »

manfredo wrote: post #41
svachalek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument goes like this: 1. The US Presidential election is decided by a small percentage of voters who have an open mind and live in the right districts. 2. Facebook’s targeted advertising allows advertisers to efficiently buy the votes of these select voters. 3. Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. Personally, I believe #1 is more or less indisputable, and I’m willing to believe #2. But I’m…

> Without Facebook, this wasn’t already happening. This double negative is a bit confusing. Targeted political messaging absolutely was a thing before Facebook and even the internet. Correlate info on zip code demographics, the readership demographics of different publications and media outlets and one can provide messages that target specific groups.

Harder to track the impact of 'analog' misinformation like leaflets/handouts too.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#64

Post by creaghpatr »

hinkley wrote: post #55

Stifling a glib, sarcastic response, who do we feel has good PR that's working, and not in some sinister meaning of 'working'? What groups and activities do people who think this way hold up as positive role models?

Theoretically, the best PR would rarely be identified as such.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#65

Post by creaghpatr »

kichik wrote: post #10
quanticle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would encourage you to read the memo itself [1] and find out. It's not that long. In it Bosworth acknowledges that Facebook, as a new medium for propagating information, had a role in shaping the outcome of the 2016 election. He said that it was no longer tenable for Facebook to claim that it had no effect, and that as the 2020 election approaches, Facebook should be conscious of its role and formulate specific pol…

Other countries have rules about political advertisement especially before elections. Those include budget limits, content, attribution, locations, and more. It's weird to think the rules are so lax here.

An advertising ban ahead of an election feels like a logical solution, or at least a simple-to-understand one. People would try and circumvent it still but the burden would be on the ad vendors to not be liable for a violation.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#66

Post by creaghpatr »

elpool2 wrote: post #61
iso1824 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers, Radio, and Television all have a named editor who is responsible for output. Facebook doesn't.

Why does it matter if they have an editor?

I think there's a legal distinction. Just like phone companies don't have a responsibility to censor misinformation being spread over the phone.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#67

Post by biznickman »

LOL "Before 2019, it felt like the Facebook communications machine was a well-oiled, unstoppable juggernaut." Umm how about Cambridge Analytica?

Facebook's PR has been troubled for a very long time. To suggest that they has a stellar image before 2019 is a joke. I can list many other slip ups where Facebook could have come out and said something (or even better, did something) and then weeks later they come up with a weak statement. If that's great PR, I'd like to offer my services to anybody who needs it.

While I'd agree that "No one ever broke rank. The messaging was crystal clear.", the message was always an awful one and now they have a relatively negative reputation despite being a remarkable success.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#68

Post by Keverw »

Diederich wrote: post #56
arrosenberg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Since they have chosen to platform those ads, they should at least be held to the same standards as networks and not show ads that are provably false. It would be better if they didn't platform them, or better yet, they didn't have that much potential influence in the first place.

> same standards as networks and not show ads that are provably false I was going to ask you for a reference on this, because I was pretty sure that no such standard existed. I was quite wrong! https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadc... "Broadcasters are responsible for selecting the broadcast material that airs on their stations, including advertisements. The FCC expects broadcasters to be respo…

I think that's only for local TV though for the FCC ones, like your ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS affiliates. They have other obligation like providing children programming which is usually early on the weekend, in exchange for the airwaves too. So cable and satellite network stations are treated differently. So like cussing on the local TV stations is a no, no but a show on HBO can cuss all they want.

Then also some states like Ohio it's illegal to sell ads to businesses that aren't solvent, Facebook is currently being sued by school districts for selling ads to a charter school that later ended up closing, which I feel is a huge overreach since most of it's automatic and the school themselves decided to buy the ads. So I guess you have to do a financial background check before selling ads. Probably easier to just exclude Ohio from selling ads, but the lawsuit hasn't been settled yet. So far no activity for 7 months but still on the docket as a open case.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#69

Post by blackbrokkoli »

I feel like the actual change is not really Facebook PR but the reporting about it? The TeenVogue affair seems to have caused a dam-break which shifted "reporting facebook as disfunctional" right into the middle of the Overton window all across the board regarding online media.

Facebooks strategy was always running away from a trail of PR bodies via sheer sized based on "customers" (which should be called products, to be honest) which did and do not care. I mean sure, this PR debacle is not a bath in glory by any means. But I can not think of any PR campaign in response to the countless past scandals which made me think "Wow, nice catch". At least in Germany, their response to the accusation of manipulating elections was a billboard campaign advertising that in Facebook you have a settings page where you can click switches and thus be in full control of your privacy (:D).

Was there ever any effective response to Zuckerberg abusing his company data to crack journalists accounts? I can even remember an age old thing where Facebook made all your posts visible forever on your board or something which was just drowned in the ongoing unchallenged growth of Facebook after some time...

To clarify, I am glad that media is finally elevating from lizard memes but I reject the notion that this current affair is the first visible crack of rotten foundations one could have observed.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#70

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #58
notadoc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook is just transitioning to becoming the digital equivalent of an oil company. Seems more analogous to a tobacco company. Some people think it's bad and they use it anyway.

> Seems more analogous to a tobacco company They have an addictive product in common. But oil seems more apt. The sale of tobacco is highly regulated. Oil, less so; Facebook, not at all. Oil became useful in the Industrial Revolution, and enabled downstream innovation. Facebook came about amidst the modern Internet and is likewise a platform. Tobacco is old and the end of the line; the ancillary market is limited. Fi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN