7 ms·
> “It’s a tricky issue,” she says, because once the companies decide they’ll do hands-on work for political groups, “it’s hard for them to say we’ll help these
by iMerNibor 9y ago
> “It’s a tricky issue,” she says, because once the companies decide they’ll do hands-on work for political groups, “it’s hard for them to say we’ll help these groups, but not others.”
Exactly this, if you help one you gotta help all of them unless it's against the law for them do to so (banned parties).
Stop with the stupid policing of "hate speech", this will just lead to anything even remotely questionable getting deleted/flagged (see current youtube ad issues, where basically everything gets demonetized and you have to appeal that to maybe get it back)
> The issue gets thornier when it comes to working with groups on the fringes of the political spectrum.
NO it does not get thornier/worse or anything like that, just let the parties advertise like any other party would be able to. Voters will decide if they want that party to represent them - that's not up to media or other any entity.
Edit: formatting, clarification
- empath75 9y agoIt’s absolutely not against the law for Facebook to decide who it wants to help or not help. It’s a private entity.
- iMerNibor 9y agoOf course they'd be allowed to, where would we end up though? Just from a moral standpoint a huge company, like google and facebook are, should not discriminate who they give advertising space to (in the context of political parties during an election)
- enraged_camel 9y ago>>Of course they'd be allowed to, where would we end up though? Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
- empath75 9y agoFrom a moral standpoint, discriminating against racists is fine.
- rglover 9y agoHaving opposing political views does not a racist make.
- maxerickson 9y agoShould people never make any assumptions about what motivates political views, even when it is obvious?
- thriftwy 9y agoThey should not actually, it's a gross disregard for personal borders. Agree with me, disagree with me, don't try to poke in my head. Actually I can't think of a worse form of bigotry than attributing motivations for behavior of others.
- empath75 9y agoReally? Nothing worse than that? How about, I dunno Jim Crow laws.
- mattmanser 9y agoWithout derailing the discussion by saying why, I'm anti-mass immigration. Not an ounce of racism motivates it. I absolutely despise the BNP and the alt-right. You thinking it's obvious I'm a racist shows how close-minded people on both sides of the debate can be.
- maxerickson 9y agoI made an abstract statement, I didn't enumerate the views I think are obviously motivated by racism. Opposition to refugees (modest numbers, carefully vetted since decades, coming from real crisis situations) is at least motivated by dimwitted xenophobia. Opposition to mass immigration would be a different category.
- 9y ago
- baby 9y agoI don't know why enraged_camel's comment is dead, but here is what he wrote. Which I think is relevant here: > Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. > https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
- wiz21c 9y agoThat's why FaceBook, having became so big, should maybe be regulated a bit (like banks, like press, like transportation, etc.)
- ekianjo 9y agoSorry but it does not seem like regulating banks has done much to improve the financial system. Why do you think regulations are the solution?
- GlennS 9y ago> it does not seem like regulating banks has done much to improve the financial system Are you sure? To me is looks like this: Loosening the regulations on US mortgages was a strong contributing factor to a global financial crisis. Since then, tightening regulations on global banking has led to banks being much less likely to fail and trigger another crisis.
- ekianjo 9y ago> Since then, tightening regulations on global banking has led to banks being much less likely to fail and trigger another crisis. you are in for a big surprise the next time a crisis hits the market. And even if your statement were true, only a few banks crashing would lead to a catastrophic domino effect, because everything is very largely inter-connected. What we have done since 2008 is largely insufficient to consider the current financial system as robust.
- chopin 9y agoRegarding banks, non-regulation isn't a solution either, though.
- ekianjo 9y agoI don't think we have even tried non-regulating the banks for several centuries or even more. Bank regulations have a very, very long history.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- privateprofile 9y agoIt is a private entity causing harm to society by facilitating the dissemination of lies and hate speech. The point is that this should be regulated and/or disallowed, much in the same way that you (fortunately) can't go on TV to call for violence against specific groups of people or to run false advertising, or, in a developed/civilized country, you'll be facing consequences. One way of doing this would be for FB and other media to be forced to provide authorities with official (and validated) company information regarding the entities that are using their service for this end, much in the same way as would happen to a company running false advertisements on TV.
- thriftwy 9y ago> causing harm to society I wonder if you know that under Stalin, you got executed for being "enemy to the society", and then your children were officially "children of enemy to the society". Because, as maps say, "You are here."
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- privateprofile 9y agoI'd venture in saying that under any dictatorship, dissidents are referred to as enemies of the state/party/country/society, to justify their silencing. Still, I have no idea where you get Stalin out of my previous post. I don't believe this story concerns citizens fighting for their freedom from opression, it's actually related to private entities fearmongering and spreading falsehoods, and media companies (FB) facilitating their work. Maybe you'd need to have a referendum to be convinced, but I think most people will agree that hate speech and lies are damaging to virtually any society, especially because these tactics are well known throughout history. Why you are conflating those two issues is beyond me, perhaps even beyond you, but I decline the bait...
- Cenk 9y agoAs someone who grew up in Germany I can tell you that banning some hate speech does most certainly not lead to "anything remotely questionable getting deleted/flagged". Holocaust denial and racism are not normal political views, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
- axaxs 9y agoWhile I agree with your sentiment -now-, it is a slippery slope. As recent as what...50 or so years ago, racism was a 'normal political view' so to speak, in USA at least...depending on your definition of normal. What's to say that someone in 2070 saying 'Speaking out against communism and AI leadership are not normal political views'. Normal is always going to be a 'moving target', and banning everything outside of 'normal' doesn't seem conducive to a free environment.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoThere’s a false dichotomy here between the status quo and banning ads. My preference is for letting anyone run whatever, provided it must be publically accessible for anyone else to view and debunk. Political ads before the Internet weren’t necessarily more honest. Their dishonesty was just more-openly debated. I’m not dead set on this proposal (if one can call it that). I was hoping for that discussion more than this cake or death.
- Cenk 9y agoBut nobody is suggesting banning "everything outside of normal". This is not an all-or-nothing proposition, there’s no reason for the slope to be slippery. You can ban holocaust denial and nothing else, or ban hate speech that fits a very specific set of criteria. Did banning shouting "Fire!" in a movie theatre lead to all speech being banned in all movie theatres?
- mercer 9y agoIf only.
- 9y ago
- mhneu 9y agoRemember how in Josh Green's book on Bannon, Green describes how Bannon and Breitbart specifically targeted young tech employees for divisive propaganda? Bannon saw tech workers as a productive demographic to incite hate in.
- te_chris 9y agoThe ultimate useful idiots: highly intelligent but generally insulated from and disinterested in the world around them.
- Tyrek 9y ago> Exactly this, if you help one you gotta help all of them unless it's against the law for them do to so (banned parties). Do you? That's kind of like saying that 'if you donate to one party, you gotta donate to all of them'. Sure, it opens you up to attacks of being unfair, but as far as I'm aware, there's no case for asymmetric support of a political party by private entities being illegal.
- WillReplyfFood 9y agoI hate comments, and articles, in this plural majestatis- WE the people demand, EVERYONE feels hurt and violated by, ALL are of the opinion. No, its you. You alone, like a loonatic gunman on a church tower, with a megaphone.