4 ms·

Regulation will be the natural consequence of the sector mostly being asleep on the wheel while the power of their platforms was turned against the values of a

Regulation will be the natural consequence of the sector mostly being asleep on the wheel while the power of their platforms was turned against the values of a democratic society. Facebook is the main culprit in this. It could be forgiven that their algorithms amplified humans’ natural instincts towards divisiveness. But not being on top of the political advertisement on their platform is gross negligence bordering on intent: simply requiring transparency of sponsorship of political ads, as well as the groups being targeted, would have gone a long way in softening the calls for regulation we now see.

fcarraldo 9y ago
Considering that Facebook specifically markets political marketing as a use-case for Facebook, including a neat little marketing site with a how-to guide[1], I think it's going to be difficult for Facebook to claim ignorance on this when regulators start knocking at their doors. Yes, they could say that their platform was being used outside of their intended use-case, but that they didn't even attempt the bare minimum to prevent abuse while actively seeking customers for its political influence machine is fairly damning. [1] https://politics.fb.com/ https://politics.fb.com/
- orev 9y ago
  How is that different from any other media platform? TV, radio, print, would all do the same thing. They clearly need more scrutiny on such ads, but otherwise it’s the same sales pitch as any other media company.
smrtinsert 9y ago
It's a culture of apathy to everything except legal threat. Look up the beginnings of Google Adwords. The only thing they cared about initially was launching - forget everything until someone threatens you with a lawsuit.
philwelch 9y ago
Would they? I don’t think they address the real problem here. Simply using social media to campaign has never been the issue. There was never backlash against Obama for doing so. There’s precious little backlash against Sanders. The only real backlash has been against Trump, and aside from being Donald Trump, the only difference is that many of Trump’s social media supporters were secretly backed by the Russian government, and I don’t think transparency requirements would have stopped the Russian government.

fcarraldo 9y ago

Considering that Facebook specifically markets political marketing as a use-case for Facebook, including a neat little marketing site with a how-to guide[1], I think it's going to be difficult for Facebook to claim ignorance on this when regulators start knocking at their doors. Yes, they could say that their platform was being used outside of their intended use-case, but that they didn't even attempt the bare minimum to prevent abuse while actively seeking customers for its political influence machine is fairly damning. [1] https://politics.fb.com/ https://politics.fb.com/

orev 9y ago
How is that different from any other media platform? TV, radio, print, would all do the same thing. They clearly need more scrutiny on such ads, but otherwise it’s the same sales pitch as any other media company.

smrtinsert 9y ago

It's a culture of apathy to everything except legal threat. Look up the beginnings of Google Adwords. The only thing they cared about initially was launching - forget everything until someone threatens you with a lawsuit.

philwelch 9y ago

Would they? I don’t think they address the real problem here. Simply using social media to campaign has never been the issue. There was never backlash against Obama for doing so. There’s precious little backlash against Sanders. The only real backlash has been against Trump, and aside from being Donald Trump, the only difference is that many of Trump’s social media supporters were secretly backed by the Russian government, and I don’t think transparency requirements would have stopped the Russian government.