5 ms·

This is smart politics. Rather than simply telling people FB is a monopoly, she runs a limited experiment that had it been left alone, would have limited effect

This is smart politics. Rather than simply telling people FB is a monopoly, she runs a limited experiment that had it been left alone, would have limited effect since the budget was so small ($100). Now this puts FB in a bind. If they really are a middleman for content, then these ads don't violate any laws and shouldn't be blocked. However, FB as a company with a product should block it just like coffee shop wouldn't allow a banner on the wall saying "better coffee down the street". This sort of overreaction to a small calculated provocation just proves the point that FB is a company first, platform second. This was obvious already to many people, but now there's a clear illustration that'll make it harder for FB to simply say they are a neutral platform.

evolvedcleaning 8y ago
Seems more like dropping pamphlets behind enemy lines about the deception, rather than promoting a competitor on company premises.
crowdpleaser 8y ago
Does Facebook claim to be a content-agnostic middleman? I know we accuse them of it, but they pulled some GOP / Trump ads for being sensational, that hardly sounds like a dispassionate middleman.
- jerf 8y ago
  It's not about what they claim to be, it's about the legal provisions that may or may not protect them. I'm not sure of all the details, which wouldn't fit in an HN post anyhow, but the short version is that if they are picking and choosing what can appear on their platform, they're also liable for it. Facebook, among other companies, want to both be able to pick and choose what appears on their platform and to enjoy the legal protections that come from not picking and choosing, but the days of that arrangement working for them are clearly numbered. And in the case of Facebook, they're clearly going to go for choosing what can appear on their platform, so it's only a matter of time before they get sued about it.
  - schoen 8y ago
    > I'm not sure of all the details, which wouldn't fit in an HN post anyhow, but the short version is that if they are picking and choosing what can appear on their platform, they're also liable for it. You might be thinking of the pre-CDA rule suggested by the Stratton Oakmont case. But Congress specifically removed that rule! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
    - Y_Y 8y ago
      Your link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. seems to not format properly, because presumably hn strips the last '.' thinking it's a full stop to end a sentence. Boo. Also for those wondering where they know the name from, that is indeed Jordan "Wolf of Wall Street" Belfort's company.
      - schoen 8y ago
        I guess I could try escaping the period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod...
dahdum 8y ago
It’s very smart, her ad campaign people must have known misusing the Facebook logo would get them denied, but now she gets press for being the victim. You or I couldn’t run those ads, this is special treatment for her.
- throwaway12iii 8y ago
  Lots of other ads have used the facebook logo and not been taken down. It's pretty funny when people are manipulated so easily by facebook PR.
  - stingraycharles 8y ago
    The article says that more than a dozen other of her ads were not taken down. So it is not like they were _all_ taken down, just a single one that carrier the logo.
    - paradoja 8y ago
      Maybe only the ones they had an easy excuse to remove?
  - nindalf 8y ago
    > Lots of other ads have used the facebook logo Care to give a single example?
mk89 8y ago
.. Or simply Facebook will blame it on algorithms that are complex, not trained etc... We have seen every possible experiment, there is always an excuse. They even had excuses for Cambridge Analytics.The best thing to do is just delete your account and that's it.
- foobiekr 8y ago
  This is the correct interpretation of the Facebook propaganda response. “The algorithm did it” serves the same purpose, for data-hoarder companies, that “drugs made me do it and I’m going to rehab” serves for celebrities.
chicob 8y ago
I agree this is smart, because it's a win-win for Warren: either the ad remains online and it does its work, or it gets taken down and that's a forced Streisand. But I don't think this is an overreaction, specially because this isn't solely about Facebook: if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal. Antitrust issues have been risen when Amazon promoted some products over others. The main questions, at least for me, are: what kind of action is acceptable for these companies? Have they grown beyond their own governance? And this applies to other companies as well. If Twitter were to shut down the POTUS account for violating TOU, people would also wonder the state of limbo of some platforms: should everyone be treated in equal terms? Does it bear some responsibility as an intermediary for public officials? Should it be subject to some standard verification protocol other than the one put in place by its engineers? It also raises questions for the user cases: should governments and public officials use social media indiscriminately? Traditional media has a certain democratic access to government: should governments give a specific social media platform preferential treatment? Should there be a call for bids when choosing a social media platform over others?
- lallysingh 8y ago
  For Google, it would've been easy. Rank some other Warren-related site above her antitrust page. If they can't find one, have someone make one. For $100, they should've left it alone.
- Semaphor 8y ago
  > But I don't think this is an overreaction The overreaction was on facebook's part.
  - valker43 8y ago
    Well, one could argue that the ad campaign was made in bad faith. Warrens people knew it would be flagged automatically by fb's algorithms because of the logo. No one at Facebook actually decided to pull the ad. And it wouldn't have been, if it weren't for going against ToS. The damage is done. But very insidious tactic still.
i_have_to_speak 8y ago
> the budget was so small ($100) Really? The article says: "The ads were limited in size and reach, with each costing under $100, according to disclosure details listed online." Each ad was "under $100," and there are no details as to the exact extent of reach. The total spend could have easily been a few hundred grand.
- nindalf 8y ago
  Have you ever paid $100 per impression on an ad campaign? You're mistaken anyway. $100 was the total budget, not per impression.
dgregd 8y ago
I would say this is ordinary politics, an obvious calculated provocation we see every day. What is surprising is a such dump FB reaction. Why such inteligent people make such dump moves? Are they really that arogant? Maybe that arrogance is caused by revenue increases after all these scandals. Maybe they treated politicians in the same way for many times, but in other countries.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  It seems likely that no human decision resulted in this move. Instead, the take down may have been automated due to the used of the FB logo in the ad. If Warren's campaign knew this policy of such removal existed, then the entire setup was just that- a setup. The ad was placed in bad faith, but there was no bad faith self-interest on the part of FB in taking it down, just the appearance of such.
3xblah 8y ago
What is a "neutral platform"? Are there any examples of such "neutral platforms" outside of web company marketing? Was this term coined by web companies? Seems to me like a more concrete term to describe a web company such as Facebook is "MITM". This has a specific meaning and we can all understand how it applies. A MITM could be benevolent, malicious or perhaps "neutral". (The existence of the later might be obviated by peer-to-peer connections.) If there could be such a thing as a "neutral platform", then maybe "the internet" is the best candidate. Not any particular MITM, whether benevolent, malicious or "neutral".

evolvedcleaning 8y ago

Seems more like dropping pamphlets behind enemy lines about the deception, rather than promoting a competitor on company premises.

crowdpleaser 8y ago

Does Facebook claim to be a content-agnostic middleman? I know we accuse them of it, but they pulled some GOP / Trump ads for being sensational, that hardly sounds like a dispassionate middleman.

jerf 8y ago
It's not about what they claim to be, it's about the legal provisions that may or may not protect them. I'm not sure of all the details, which wouldn't fit in an HN post anyhow, but the short version is that if they are picking and choosing what can appear on their platform, they're also liable for it. Facebook, among other companies, want to both be able to pick and choose what appears on their platform and to enjoy the legal protections that come from not picking and choosing, but the days of that arrangement working for them are clearly numbered. And in the case of Facebook, they're clearly going to go for choosing what can appear on their platform, so it's only a matter of time before they get sued about it.
- schoen 8y ago
  > I'm not sure of all the details, which wouldn't fit in an HN post anyhow, but the short version is that if they are picking and choosing what can appear on their platform, they're also liable for it. You might be thinking of the pre-CDA rule suggested by the Stratton Oakmont case. But Congress specifically removed that rule! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
  - Y_Y 8y ago
    Your link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. seems to not format properly, because presumably hn strips the last '.' thinking it's a full stop to end a sentence. Boo. Also for those wondering where they know the name from, that is indeed Jordan "Wolf of Wall Street" Belfort's company.
    - schoen 8y ago
      I guess I could try escaping the period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod...

dahdum 8y ago

It’s very smart, her ad campaign people must have known misusing the Facebook logo would get them denied, but now she gets press for being the victim. You or I couldn’t run those ads, this is special treatment for her.

throwaway12iii 8y ago
Lots of other ads have used the facebook logo and not been taken down. It's pretty funny when people are manipulated so easily by facebook PR.
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  The article says that more than a dozen other of her ads were not taken down. So it is not like they were _all_ taken down, just a single one that carrier the logo.
  - paradoja 8y ago
    Maybe only the ones they had an easy excuse to remove?
- nindalf 8y ago
  > Lots of other ads have used the facebook logo Care to give a single example?

mk89 8y ago

.. Or simply Facebook will blame it on algorithms that are complex, not trained etc... We have seen every possible experiment, there is always an excuse. They even had excuses for Cambridge Analytics.The best thing to do is just delete your account and that's it.

foobiekr 8y ago
This is the correct interpretation of the Facebook propaganda response. “The algorithm did it” serves the same purpose, for data-hoarder companies, that “drugs made me do it and I’m going to rehab” serves for celebrities.

chicob 8y ago

I agree this is smart, because it's a win-win for Warren: either the ad remains online and it does its work, or it gets taken down and that's a forced Streisand. But I don't think this is an overreaction, specially because this isn't solely about Facebook: if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal. Antitrust issues have been risen when Amazon promoted some products over others. The main questions, at least for me, are: what kind of action is acceptable for these companies? Have they grown beyond their own governance? And this applies to other companies as well. If Twitter were to shut down the POTUS account for violating TOU, people would also wonder the state of limbo of some platforms: should everyone be treated in equal terms? Does it bear some responsibility as an intermediary for public officials? Should it be subject to some standard verification protocol other than the one put in place by its engineers? It also raises questions for the user cases: should governments and public officials use social media indiscriminately? Traditional media has a certain democratic access to government: should governments give a specific social media platform preferential treatment? Should there be a call for bids when choosing a social media platform over others?

lallysingh 8y ago
For Google, it would've been easy. Rank some other Warren-related site above her antitrust page. If they can't find one, have someone make one. For $100, they should've left it alone.
Semaphor 8y ago
> But I don't think this is an overreaction The overreaction was on facebook's part.
- valker43 8y ago
  Well, one could argue that the ad campaign was made in bad faith. Warrens people knew it would be flagged automatically by fb's algorithms because of the logo. No one at Facebook actually decided to pull the ad. And it wouldn't have been, if it weren't for going against ToS. The damage is done. But very insidious tactic still.

i_have_to_speak 8y ago

> the budget was so small ($100) Really? The article says: "The ads were limited in size and reach, with each costing under $100, according to disclosure details listed online." Each ad was "under $100," and there are no details as to the exact extent of reach. The total spend could have easily been a few hundred grand.

nindalf 8y ago
Have you ever paid $100 per impression on an ad campaign? You're mistaken anyway. $100 was the total budget, not per impression.

dgregd 8y ago

I would say this is ordinary politics, an obvious calculated provocation we see every day. What is surprising is a such dump FB reaction. Why such inteligent people make such dump moves? Are they really that arogant? Maybe that arrogance is caused by revenue increases after all these scandals. Maybe they treated politicians in the same way for many times, but in other countries.

ineedasername 8y ago
It seems likely that no human decision resulted in this move. Instead, the take down may have been automated due to the used of the FB logo in the ad. If Warren's campaign knew this policy of such removal existed, then the entire setup was just that- a setup. The ad was placed in bad faith, but there was no bad faith self-interest on the part of FB in taking it down, just the appearance of such.

3xblah 8y ago

What is a "neutral platform"? Are there any examples of such "neutral platforms" outside of web company marketing? Was this term coined by web companies? Seems to me like a more concrete term to describe a web company such as Facebook is "MITM". This has a specific meaning and we can all understand how it applies. A MITM could be benevolent, malicious or perhaps "neutral". (The existence of the later might be obviated by peer-to-peer connections.) If there could be such a thing as a "neutral platform", then maybe "the internet" is the best candidate. Not any particular MITM, whether benevolent, malicious or "neutral".