3 ms·

The terms of service suggest that any ad that discusses Facebook is ripe for removal. Her point stands and is expanded by the selective enforcement of their ToS

The terms of service suggest that any ad that discusses Facebook is ripe for removal. Her point stands and is expanded by the selective enforcement of their ToS; is this the platform for public discourse that we want for ourselves and do we want any such platform to be this powerful?

dmix 8y ago
I thought Warren’s demographic loves having top down moderation-heavy social networks?
- gatherhunterer 8y ago
  Is what you think of Elizabeth Warren informed by what Elizabeth Warren says and does?
- int_19h 8y ago
  It depends. There are specific things that FB has done that makes their censorship unwelcome in many leftie circles - e.g. the real name policy is seen as transphobic by many, and their "indecent content" standards as sexist. They have also removed comments such as "all white people are racist" as hate speech. But yes, I would say that most of her voters want different priorities in online censorship, not less of it. It will be interesting how she navigates that - "social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor" is vague enough that Voat could put it on their front page as an endorsement (and they just might, if only for the sake of trolling).
- Grue3 8y ago
  Only when they moderate people they don't like.
dillondoyle 8y ago
To be fair, I have in the past had ads automatically 'removed' in approval process which use the logo that have nothing to do with FB, just happen to use the logo. Same with 'March Madness.' They have automated approvals which catch use of the logo.
- gatherhunterer 8y ago
  That is a fair point. I assume that they have different rules for the likes of Warren than they have for you. It is feasible, though, that this was caught in an algorithm and Facebook declined to volunteer that fact.
  - dillondoyle 8y ago
    I work almost exclusively for politicians, specifically buying ads online (a lot on FB). It would be a new development to me if there is a tiered/segregated approval for political ads. Perhaps now that you have to sign affidavit, but it feels like the same outsourced process as normal where it's mostly automated process.

dmix 8y ago

I thought Warren’s demographic loves having top down moderation-heavy social networks?

gatherhunterer 8y ago
Is what you think of Elizabeth Warren informed by what Elizabeth Warren says and does?
int_19h 8y ago
It depends. There are specific things that FB has done that makes their censorship unwelcome in many leftie circles - e.g. the real name policy is seen as transphobic by many, and their "indecent content" standards as sexist. They have also removed comments such as "all white people are racist" as hate speech. But yes, I would say that most of her voters want different priorities in online censorship, not less of it. It will be interesting how she navigates that - "social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor" is vague enough that Voat could put it on their front page as an endorsement (and they just might, if only for the sake of trolling).
Grue3 8y ago
Only when they moderate people they don't like.

dillondoyle 8y ago

To be fair, I have in the past had ads automatically 'removed' in approval process which use the logo that have nothing to do with FB, just happen to use the logo. Same with 'March Madness.' They have automated approvals which catch use of the logo.

gatherhunterer 8y ago
That is a fair point. I assume that they have different rules for the likes of Warren than they have for you. It is feasible, though, that this was caught in an algorithm and Facebook declined to volunteer that fact.
- dillondoyle 8y ago
  I work almost exclusively for politicians, specifically buying ads online (a lot on FB). It would be a new development to me if there is a tiered/segregated approval for political ads. Perhaps now that you have to sign affidavit, but it feels like the same outsourced process as normal where it's mostly automated process.