7 ms·

Facebook promised to fix political ads on its platform. It hasn't

107 points by MilnerRoute 8y ago

LiterallyDoge 8y ago
Tomorrow in the news: WATER: WET.
- annadane 8y ago
  Also tomorrow on the news: People who leave stupid fucking stereotyped comments on every story surrounding Facebook
Circumnavigate 8y ago
Until these corporations are properly held accountable we can expect the same old.
echevil 8y ago
It is indeed a hard problem to solve. I guess more traditional news media are not free of such problem as well. Who knows if every single ads on their site is not problematic, or if their reporters are not secretly sponsored by problematic sources
- kopo 8y ago
  They just need to stick a banner above all of them saying watching this Ad is injurious to your mind. If its up to me that would be on every news website and tv channel too. Along with a live ticker on how much revenue is being generated through ad sales.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    So kind of like Prop 65 warnings that are everywhere so people just learn to ignore them?
- astrodust 8y ago
  Somehow print media doesn't have this problem. It's because they have a process and humans involved in placement.
  - echevil 8y ago
    What if the humans are not reliable
    - astrodust 8y ago
      What if the algorithms are terrible and think people named Jared who play lacrosse are the best picks for hiring to the exclusion of other factors?
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      Even if some humans are not reliable, it's still better than having no gatekeeper whatsoever.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  I guess more traditional news media are not free of such problem as well. Traditional media is more hands-on and face-to-face. There are salespeople involved, and better money trails. This is largely because the salespeople get a cut of the money spent. Since Facebook decided to cut the salespeople out and automate the ad buying process, there are no gatekeepers. There is no salesperson wondering why an ad buy for a local congressional race is paid for with a check from a Russian bank. Facebook and others are trying to build makeshift gatekeepers through AI. But AI, while very interesting, is still not up to the task.
  - ilovecaching 8y ago
    The traditional media also pumps out loads of fake news, FUDs, and Ads by super-pacs. The only thing the traditional media isn't doing is selling enough ads to have a world scale impact, because they're a dying form of media compared to social networking and the search. When I'm on twitter I see a nice mix of utter crap and useful information. When I read the NYT it's just a carefully curated selection of total crap.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      When I read the NYT it's just a carefully curated selection of total crap. Based on that statement, I have to believe that you don't actually read the New York Times. You read a very small subset of NYT articles, probably online, that appeal to your anger response. If you actually read the entirety of the New York Times, you'd feel differently. Or at least foolish for making such a sweeping statement.
      - ilovecaching 8y ago
        I have a weekday subscription, so I do read it regularly.
      - echevil 8y ago
        I think it's equally problematic if you simply trust everything you read on New York Times (or any other media)
scblock 8y ago
I wouldn't expect them to fix anything. When you have the ethics of a company like Facebook it's much easier to claim you're going to fix something and then keep doing it. You can't cut off the money faucet if that's all you care about, especially when you know you're not actually going to get in trouble for it.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  And it's in CNN's best interest to keep pumping out stories that they aren't, because Google and Facebook are the two monsters taking all of the ad revenue from the once lucrative news trade. That's why I take what the media says worth a grain of salt. They'd love to become the sole source of news again. They're actively looking to make these new age ad platforms fail. Unless you have actual proof that someone is or isn't doing something, it's better to just assume you're missing context.
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  Exactly. The past couple years have been an exercise in the inadequacies of the honor system. There are no consequences; we can't expect either industry or government entities to self-regulate out of basic human decency. Their efforts to fix the problem amount to nothing more than a cynical PR move. They halfheartedly assuage doubts until the news cycle shifts again. There are no consequences for anyone.
  - ilovecaching 8y ago
    I guess you haven't heard about the fees and penalties levied against companies who fail to conform to FTC regulations and government mandates. There's plenty of regulation. It's simply a hard problem to solve. The media just wants to spin the story so people will stop looking at FB and Google for news and pay their subscription fees.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > I guess you haven't heard about the fees and penalties levied against companies who fail to conform to FTC regulations and government mandates. There's plenty of regulation. It's simply a hard problem to solve. I've heard plenty about them. The fees and penalties are often so small compared to the revenues of the companies they're levied against that they seem more like a cost of doing business than a punishment that could actually change behavior.
code4tee 8y ago
Expecting a company to self-regulate itself to stop a certain sub-population of potential customers from buying its services is, not surprisingly, ineffective.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  It's not self regulation. You're misinformed. There are millions to billions in penalties that the FTC and other agencies can give out to organizations for all sorts of crap.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    > billions in penalties And yet, Facebook is still solvent, because surprise, surprise, the non-self regulation isn't happening. Self regulation is all that's left, and it is, not surprisingly, ineffective.
biophysboy 8y ago
As somebody who left Facebook several months ago and has been skeptical about its public utility for longer, I honestly wonder if this problem is simply too large. Even if they have some super duper fake news detection mechanism, surely it will generate false positives due to the sheer volume of political ads? CNN is claiming neglect. They are probably right. But I think FB is overwhelmed too. Especially now that they have news vultures like Vice dunking on them post-Cambridge Analytica.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  The media is in direct competition with Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Of course they'll dunk on them every chance they get.
- pimmen 8y ago
  > CNN is claiming neglect. They are probably right. But I think FB is overwhelmed too. Especially now that they have news vultures like Vice dunking on them post-Cambridge Analytica. Who would've thought making billions of dollars mean overwhelming amounts of work to stay professional?
- 908087 8y ago
  > But I think FB is overwhelmed too. Especially now that they have news vultures like Vice dunking on them post-Cambridge Analytica. Would you prefer everyone just let it slide instead, to avoid "overwhelming" Facebook?
  - biophysboy 8y ago
    No way. By "overwhelmed", I mean to say that I think Facebook dug themselves into a hole, and now they're kicking themselves for it. They grew too big too fast. Turns out "connecting the world" was a bad idea.
    - 908087 8y ago
      Can the center of a black hole dig itself out?
pimmen 8y ago
In 2014 there was a mini scandal in Sweden about Facebook allowing a page titled "Vitmakt neger slakt" (roughly translating to "White power nigger slaughter") dedicated to what you expect a page with that name, with absolutely no irony attached, be dedicated to stay up despite multiple reports of hate speech [1]. A spokesperson from Facebook Sweden had to explain himself and he said that the reports were sent to a team in Dublin to be reviewed. When asked if the page was viewed by any Facebook staff who can read Swedish at any time during the review process, since it is clearly hate speech to anyone with half a brain, he couldn't say. The page was taken down a few hours after media ran the story. I have a hard time feeling sorry for Facebook about all this work they have to do now to make sure the political discourse on their platform isn't bonkers. They're killing off a lot of media companies and now they're shocked, shocked, that all those ethical demands people made to the media industry is being directed at Facebook instead. What the hell did they expect? [1]https://www.metro.se/artikel/facebook-plockar-inte-ner-negerslakt-sida-trots-anm%C3%A4lningar-xr https://www.metro.se/artikel/facebook-plockar-inte-ner-neger...
dmalvarado 8y ago
Can't they just make money while selling 0 political ad space? The whackamole infrastructure and the toll it takes on literally everyone and everything involved has got to be worse then not selling political adspace at all. Imagine a Facebook where you didn't have to feel rage at your stupid uncle sharing some dumb, over-simplified text graphic. Might actually be a net positive.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  Facebook is a platform where you can promote your business or political agenda and still reach a large amount of people regardless of your budget. The media doesn't cover all of the good that digital advertising does for people who are trying to make a difference and wouldn't be able to afford an ad in a major news paper.
  - creato 8y ago
    The person you are responding to was talking specifically about political advertising. Your response is defending all advertising?

107 points by MilnerRoute 8y ago

LiterallyDoge 8y ago

Tomorrow in the news: WATER: WET.

annadane 8y ago
Also tomorrow on the news: People who leave stupid fucking stereotyped comments on every story surrounding Facebook

Circumnavigate 8y ago

Until these corporations are properly held accountable we can expect the same old.

echevil 8y ago

It is indeed a hard problem to solve. I guess more traditional news media are not free of such problem as well. Who knows if every single ads on their site is not problematic, or if their reporters are not secretly sponsored by problematic sources

kopo 8y ago
They just need to stick a banner above all of them saying watching this Ad is injurious to your mind. If its up to me that would be on every news website and tv channel too. Along with a live ticker on how much revenue is being generated through ad sales.
- ummonk 8y ago
  So kind of like Prop 65 warnings that are everywhere so people just learn to ignore them?
astrodust 8y ago
Somehow print media doesn't have this problem. It's because they have a process and humans involved in placement.
- echevil 8y ago
  What if the humans are not reliable
  - astrodust 8y ago
    What if the algorithms are terrible and think people named Jared who play lacrosse are the best picks for hiring to the exclusion of other factors?
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    Even if some humans are not reliable, it's still better than having no gatekeeper whatsoever.
reaperducer 8y ago
I guess more traditional news media are not free of such problem as well. Traditional media is more hands-on and face-to-face. There are salespeople involved, and better money trails. This is largely because the salespeople get a cut of the money spent. Since Facebook decided to cut the salespeople out and automate the ad buying process, there are no gatekeepers. There is no salesperson wondering why an ad buy for a local congressional race is paid for with a check from a Russian bank. Facebook and others are trying to build makeshift gatekeepers through AI. But AI, while very interesting, is still not up to the task.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  The traditional media also pumps out loads of fake news, FUDs, and Ads by super-pacs. The only thing the traditional media isn't doing is selling enough ads to have a world scale impact, because they're a dying form of media compared to social networking and the search. When I'm on twitter I see a nice mix of utter crap and useful information. When I read the NYT it's just a carefully curated selection of total crap.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    When I read the NYT it's just a carefully curated selection of total crap. Based on that statement, I have to believe that you don't actually read the New York Times. You read a very small subset of NYT articles, probably online, that appeal to your anger response. If you actually read the entirety of the New York Times, you'd feel differently. Or at least foolish for making such a sweeping statement.
    - ilovecaching 8y ago
      I have a weekday subscription, so I do read it regularly.
    - echevil 8y ago
      I think it's equally problematic if you simply trust everything you read on New York Times (or any other media)

scblock 8y ago

I wouldn't expect them to fix anything. When you have the ethics of a company like Facebook it's much easier to claim you're going to fix something and then keep doing it. You can't cut off the money faucet if that's all you care about, especially when you know you're not actually going to get in trouble for it.

ilovecaching 8y ago
And it's in CNN's best interest to keep pumping out stories that they aren't, because Google and Facebook are the two monsters taking all of the ad revenue from the once lucrative news trade. That's why I take what the media says worth a grain of salt. They'd love to become the sole source of news again. They're actively looking to make these new age ad platforms fail. Unless you have actual proof that someone is or isn't doing something, it's better to just assume you're missing context.
vertexFarm 8y ago
Exactly. The past couple years have been an exercise in the inadequacies of the honor system. There are no consequences; we can't expect either industry or government entities to self-regulate out of basic human decency. Their efforts to fix the problem amount to nothing more than a cynical PR move. They halfheartedly assuage doubts until the news cycle shifts again. There are no consequences for anyone.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  I guess you haven't heard about the fees and penalties levied against companies who fail to conform to FTC regulations and government mandates. There's plenty of regulation. It's simply a hard problem to solve. The media just wants to spin the story so people will stop looking at FB and Google for news and pay their subscription fees.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > I guess you haven't heard about the fees and penalties levied against companies who fail to conform to FTC regulations and government mandates. There's plenty of regulation. It's simply a hard problem to solve. I've heard plenty about them. The fees and penalties are often so small compared to the revenues of the companies they're levied against that they seem more like a cost of doing business than a punishment that could actually change behavior.

code4tee 8y ago

Expecting a company to self-regulate itself to stop a certain sub-population of potential customers from buying its services is, not surprisingly, ineffective.

ilovecaching 8y ago
It's not self regulation. You're misinformed. There are millions to billions in penalties that the FTC and other agencies can give out to organizations for all sorts of crap.
- a1369209993 8y ago
  > billions in penalties And yet, Facebook is still solvent, because surprise, surprise, the non-self regulation isn't happening. Self regulation is all that's left, and it is, not surprisingly, ineffective.

biophysboy 8y ago

As somebody who left Facebook several months ago and has been skeptical about its public utility for longer, I honestly wonder if this problem is simply too large. Even if they have some super duper fake news detection mechanism, surely it will generate false positives due to the sheer volume of political ads? CNN is claiming neglect. They are probably right. But I think FB is overwhelmed too. Especially now that they have news vultures like Vice dunking on them post-Cambridge Analytica.

ilovecaching 8y ago
The media is in direct competition with Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Of course they'll dunk on them every chance they get.
pimmen 8y ago
> CNN is claiming neglect. They are probably right. But I think FB is overwhelmed too. Especially now that they have news vultures like Vice dunking on them post-Cambridge Analytica. Who would've thought making billions of dollars mean overwhelming amounts of work to stay professional?
908087 8y ago
> But I think FB is overwhelmed too. Especially now that they have news vultures like Vice dunking on them post-Cambridge Analytica. Would you prefer everyone just let it slide instead, to avoid "overwhelming" Facebook?
- biophysboy 8y ago
  No way. By "overwhelmed", I mean to say that I think Facebook dug themselves into a hole, and now they're kicking themselves for it. They grew too big too fast. Turns out "connecting the world" was a bad idea.
  - 908087 8y ago
    Can the center of a black hole dig itself out?

pimmen 8y ago

In 2014 there was a mini scandal in Sweden about Facebook allowing a page titled "Vitmakt neger slakt" (roughly translating to "White power nigger slaughter") dedicated to what you expect a page with that name, with absolutely no irony attached, be dedicated to stay up despite multiple reports of hate speech [1]. A spokesperson from Facebook Sweden had to explain himself and he said that the reports were sent to a team in Dublin to be reviewed. When asked if the page was viewed by any Facebook staff who can read Swedish at any time during the review process, since it is clearly hate speech to anyone with half a brain, he couldn't say. The page was taken down a few hours after media ran the story. I have a hard time feeling sorry for Facebook about all this work they have to do now to make sure the political discourse on their platform isn't bonkers. They're killing off a lot of media companies and now they're shocked, shocked, that all those ethical demands people made to the media industry is being directed at Facebook instead. What the hell did they expect? [1]https://www.metro.se/artikel/facebook-plockar-inte-ner-negerslakt-sida-trots-anm%C3%A4lningar-xr https://www.metro.se/artikel/facebook-plockar-inte-ner-neger...

dmalvarado 8y ago

Can't they just make money while selling 0 political ad space? The whackamole infrastructure and the toll it takes on literally everyone and everything involved has got to be worse then not selling political adspace at all. Imagine a Facebook where you didn't have to feel rage at your stupid uncle sharing some dumb, over-simplified text graphic. Might actually be a net positive.

ilovecaching 8y ago
Facebook is a platform where you can promote your business or political agenda and still reach a large amount of people regardless of your budget. The media doesn't cover all of the good that digital advertising does for people who are trying to make a difference and wouldn't be able to afford an ad in a major news paper.
- creato 8y ago
  The person you are responding to was talking specifically about political advertising. Your response is defending all advertising?