4 ms·
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
by 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 agoFor 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 agoWell, 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.
- chicob 8y agoYou're right, I misread that.
- aliteralrobot 8y ago> a forced Streisand For those who didn’t catch the reference, this is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- bovermyer 8y agoThanks for the link. I'd never heard of this being called a "Streisand effect" before.
- tome 8y agoIronically, that's evidence agaist its existence as an effect.
- bovermyer 8y agoThe phenomenon described is common - making a noticeable effort to hide something draws more attention to what you're trying to hide. Attributing it to a specific individual seems a little weird to me. It'd be like calling lashing out in anger "the Depp effect."
- vijaybritto 8y agoWhat if FB makes sure the ad sees non impressionable audience?
- marklyon 8y ago> if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal. Would it? A number of Republican candidates note that their email goes straight to spam in Gmail, while messages from Democratic candidates do not, even without any obvious difference in delivery efforts by the sender. Nobody cares.