4 ms·

I buy political ads as a big part of our business. This cycle, FB is FAR easier to work with than Google. I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the

I buy political ads as a big part of our business. This cycle, FB is FAR easier to work with than Google. I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the liability to ad buyer (who signed an affidavit to run those paid for ads... and Vice broke that contract but also probably the law). Whereas Google is giving huge problems for basically all our clients because they seem to be doing manual DD. Not focusing on whether or not FB should take on this DD, as an ad buyer FB's approach and process is at least 10x smoother - at least for us. I'm not joking. can only think of one odd compliance issue we had with mismatched IG and FB profile names. Google on the other hand... problems every time. Problems in the approval process to get personally approved (ux and process is horrid) and then they constantly reject ads we submit as unapproved for politics, despite going through this process many many times.

r_singh 8y ago
It's interesting to hear your thoughts as a person whose work requires to interface with the political-ad-vetting process of web giants. If you were a representative of the public (with interests in safeguarding the authenticity of information promoted to individuals of the public), would you endorse a difficult google like vetting process or a superficial, lenient vetting process adopted by Facebook?
- dillondoyle 8y ago
  I can understand the public interest. I wouldn't mind a vetting process that works; google's just doesn't at least for us. The time not up with ads === censoring political speech IMHO and to me political speech is sacrosanct. The tradeoff isn't worth it. But also I have probably an extreme view out of the norm for most here. I view politics as almost capitalistic (not just in that I make money doing it) but that it's a competition of ideas, attention, advertising etc. So despite being pretty strong D I value an 'open arena' even if open to abuse. I feel the same for non-paid content. Attempts to 'vet' or label content as factual or biased seem to all have problems or are game-able and for me personally I don't think it's worth the trade off. Though in my 'theory' of political competition I acknowledge it's very hard to fight back against 'fake' and nation-state opponents. Again, I'm probably extreme here but I do understand the public interest argument.
  - mnx 8y ago
    Thanks for this perspective, I think it's a shame you were down-voted for providing it.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> Though in my 'theory' of political competition I acknowledge it's very hard to fight back against 'fake' and nation-state opponents. So what's your solution then? Even less moderation?
    - dillondoyle 8y ago
      I'm not offering a solution. Though I do think that role should be left to police, government, and regulators. Now that FB and Google are collecting affidavits and scans of IDs, it is much easier for the actual rule keepers to hold law breakers accountable. 'organic' content is much harder and I don't have solution, just that I take a more 'stopping the few bad actors, != not worth affecting the mostly good' view (than it seems the vast majority) when weighing the potential effect on actual political speech any solution has
StreamBright 8y ago
>>> I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the liability to ad buyer Totally. It is Russia's responsibility not to accidentally or knowingly meddle with an election, not Facebook's. I guess there is one last question, what was Zuckerberg doing in a congressional hearing?
- jklein11 8y ago
  I'm assuming this is sarcasm but I can kind of see the case that Facebook is making here. For example, if a drunk person behind the wheel of a Ford does a tremendous amount of damaage, no one goes after Ford for not preventing it. Facebook is a tool. Is it Facebook's responsibility to make sure that everyone uses it ethically? I can understand putting in measures to make sure that everyone is using it legally and have a mechanism to help authorities stop bad actors but deciding what a "bad actor" is shouldn't Facebook's responsibility.
  - abainbridge 8y ago
    However, if a newspaper prints a story saying senator X said Y, and that claim was false, then the newspaper can be sued, regardless of where they got that information or which employee wrote the story. Given your analogy, the question is, is Facebook more like a car manufacturer or a newspaper?
    - count 8y ago
      If a newspaper runs an advertisement that turns out to be false (say, a fake claim about a thing for sale), is it the newspaper or the advertiser who's at fault?
      - yorwba 8y ago
        The advertiser. But if someone sues the advertiser and it turns out that the person listed by the newspaper as the advertiser isn't actually the advertiser, it's the newspaper's fault for not verifying their customers.

r_singh 8y ago

It's interesting to hear your thoughts as a person whose work requires to interface with the political-ad-vetting process of web giants. If you were a representative of the public (with interests in safeguarding the authenticity of information promoted to individuals of the public), would you endorse a difficult google like vetting process or a superficial, lenient vetting process adopted by Facebook?

dillondoyle 8y ago
I can understand the public interest. I wouldn't mind a vetting process that works; google's just doesn't at least for us. The time not up with ads === censoring political speech IMHO and to me political speech is sacrosanct. The tradeoff isn't worth it. But also I have probably an extreme view out of the norm for most here. I view politics as almost capitalistic (not just in that I make money doing it) but that it's a competition of ideas, attention, advertising etc. So despite being pretty strong D I value an 'open arena' even if open to abuse. I feel the same for non-paid content. Attempts to 'vet' or label content as factual or biased seem to all have problems or are game-able and for me personally I don't think it's worth the trade off. Though in my 'theory' of political competition I acknowledge it's very hard to fight back against 'fake' and nation-state opponents. Again, I'm probably extreme here but I do understand the public interest argument.
- mnx 8y ago
  Thanks for this perspective, I think it's a shame you were down-voted for providing it.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  >> Though in my 'theory' of political competition I acknowledge it's very hard to fight back against 'fake' and nation-state opponents. So what's your solution then? Even less moderation?
  - dillondoyle 8y ago
    I'm not offering a solution. Though I do think that role should be left to police, government, and regulators. Now that FB and Google are collecting affidavits and scans of IDs, it is much easier for the actual rule keepers to hold law breakers accountable. 'organic' content is much harder and I don't have solution, just that I take a more 'stopping the few bad actors, != not worth affecting the mostly good' view (than it seems the vast majority) when weighing the potential effect on actual political speech any solution has

StreamBright 8y ago

>>> I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the liability to ad buyer Totally. It is Russia's responsibility not to accidentally or knowingly meddle with an election, not Facebook's. I guess there is one last question, what was Zuckerberg doing in a congressional hearing?

jklein11 8y ago
I'm assuming this is sarcasm but I can kind of see the case that Facebook is making here. For example, if a drunk person behind the wheel of a Ford does a tremendous amount of damaage, no one goes after Ford for not preventing it. Facebook is a tool. Is it Facebook's responsibility to make sure that everyone uses it ethically? I can understand putting in measures to make sure that everyone is using it legally and have a mechanism to help authorities stop bad actors but deciding what a "bad actor" is shouldn't Facebook's responsibility.
- abainbridge 8y ago
  However, if a newspaper prints a story saying senator X said Y, and that claim was false, then the newspaper can be sued, regardless of where they got that information or which employee wrote the story. Given your analogy, the question is, is Facebook more like a car manufacturer or a newspaper?
  - count 8y ago
    If a newspaper runs an advertisement that turns out to be false (say, a fake claim about a thing for sale), is it the newspaper or the advertiser who's at fault?
    - yorwba 8y ago
      The advertiser. But if someone sues the advertiser and it turns out that the person listed by the newspaper as the advertiser isn't actually the advertiser, it's the newspaper's fault for not verifying their customers.