5 ms·

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but this is a low value comment in furthering healthy discussion. Consider tacking on some further qualifiers to supp

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but this is a low value comment in furthering healthy discussion. Consider tacking on some further qualifiers to support your claim. * In what actionable ways do you think they are missing the mark on reformation? * What in your opinion is the bar for reformation for a social media corporation? Otherwise, Twitter-esque call-to-panic statements like these diminish the signal to noise quality of discussion here. Just a friendly suggestion.

akiselev 8y ago
I don't have time (or the thumbs) to make a comprehensive list but Facebook has been repeatedly caught doing the absolute bare minimum for PR reasons with little real effect (which theyd be aware of). For example, earlier this year Facebook announced after public pressure that it would require labeling of all political ads [1]. Right before the midterms, Vice publishes the result of their investigation: they posed as all 100 senators and every single ad got through, labeled as an ad by a sitting senator [2]. You'd imagine a system for identity verification is the first thing they'd have set up before announcing new rules for identifying the source of political advertising. This is a pattern with facebook and the other social media companies. When they're put under a microscope, they pay lip service to legislators and the public, then continue business as usual. [1] https://www.facebook.com/business/news/requiring-authorization-and-labeling-for-ads-with-political-content https://www.facebook.com/business/news/requiring-authorizati... [2] https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw9n3q/we-posed-as-100-senators-to-run-ads-on-facebook-facebook-approved-all-of-them https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw9n3q/we-posed-as-100-s...
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  That Vice headline is simply not true. They note at the very bottom of their article that no ads "got through" because they never bought any in the first place.
  - jonnismash 8y ago
    The only thing I see that didn't get through was "There was one “Paid for” disclosure that Facebook didn’t approve in our latest test. They denied, just a couple minutes after we submitted it: Mark Zuckerberg." Where do you see that?
    - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
      Oh, I guess it was the last paragraph of the snippet and not the full article. > What’s more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as “Cookies for Political Transparency” and “Ninja Turtles PAC.” VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.
Dylan16807 8y ago
>I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but this is a low value comment in furthering healthy discussion. I disagree. When someone poses an analogy, it's a valid and contributing comment to point out a key flaw in the analogy, even if you didn't bring citations. There are contexts where a comment like that is low value, for example if it's just contradicting another comment. The standards for making a statement are higher in that case. But in context this comment is fine. I have no idea what you're even on about calling it a call to panic. Your comment is far more problematic than what you reply to.

akiselev 8y ago

I don't have time (or the thumbs) to make a comprehensive list but Facebook has been repeatedly caught doing the absolute bare minimum for PR reasons with little real effect (which theyd be aware of). For example, earlier this year Facebook announced after public pressure that it would require labeling of all political ads [1]. Right before the midterms, Vice publishes the result of their investigation: they posed as all 100 senators and every single ad got through, labeled as an ad by a sitting senator [2]. You'd imagine a system for identity verification is the first thing they'd have set up before announcing new rules for identifying the source of political advertising. This is a pattern with facebook and the other social media companies. When they're put under a microscope, they pay lip service to legislators and the public, then continue business as usual. [1] https://www.facebook.com/business/news/requiring-authorization-and-labeling-for-ads-with-political-content https://www.facebook.com/business/news/requiring-authorizati... [2] https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw9n3q/we-posed-as-100-senators-to-run-ads-on-facebook-facebook-approved-all-of-them https://news.vice.com/en_ca/article/xw9n3q/we-posed-as-100-s...

SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
That Vice headline is simply not true. They note at the very bottom of their article that no ads "got through" because they never bought any in the first place.
- jonnismash 8y ago
  The only thing I see that didn't get through was "There was one “Paid for” disclosure that Facebook didn’t approve in our latest test. They denied, just a couple minutes after we submitted it: Mark Zuckerberg." Where do you see that?
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    Oh, I guess it was the last paragraph of the snippet and not the full article. > What’s more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as “Cookies for Political Transparency” and “Ninja Turtles PAC.” VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.

Dylan16807 8y ago

>I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but this is a low value comment in furthering healthy discussion. I disagree. When someone poses an analogy, it's a valid and contributing comment to point out a key flaw in the analogy, even if you didn't bring citations. There are contexts where a comment like that is low value, for example if it's just contradicting another comment. The standards for making a statement are higher in that case. But in context this comment is fine. I have no idea what you're even on about calling it a call to panic. Your comment is far more problematic than what you reply to.