12 ms·

I don't understand why Zuckerberg doesn't just cut his losses and remove political ads. It does not seem worth it financially or non-financially.

cryptozeus 7y ago
Non-financially is a big one...they can really determine the outcome of elections here , that is a power they don't want to loose
- mliker 7y ago
  > that is a power they don't want to lose What makes you think they want that power in the first place?
  - maxdamantus 7y ago
    Because they get to sell that power (advertising space) to others.
  - jeffshek 7y ago
    IIRC, Zuck has debated running in the future. Having Facebook with that power would probably benefit.
    - war1025 7y ago
      With the fit everyone threw over Trump having (relatively speaking) minor business connections, I'd hate to see what people would say over Zuckerberg running for any sort of office.
  - baddox 7y ago
    I'm not really sure how to answer that question without just saying how extremely obvious it is that a massive national (and international) company would benefit massively from having influence over USA national politics.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      It is equally obvious that there would be an extreme backlash by politicians and regulators if facebook ever decides to (openly) use that power. Also, it would alienate at least half their user base. In short, why would they even want to be seen as possibly having that power?
      - baddox 7y ago
        Oh, to be clear, I suspect they definitely don't want to be seen as having (or using) that power.
  - cryptozeus 7y ago
    Really ? It is obvious if you see their track record for last few years...I mean the ceo is having private dinner with both wings
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      It is obvious that the CEO of one of the biggest and most influential companies in the world would have dinner with world leaders. I'm not sure I see anything that supports your conclusion. Have you considered what evidence would make you change your mind?
  - badrequest 7y ago
    Power doesn't just fall into people's laps, and normally those who don't want power falling into their laps take the first opportunity to reject it.
rrrx3 7y ago
Exactly. I work in digital advertising and we just don't take political or issue based campaigns. The spend isn't worth it. The hassle isn't worth it. The optics aren't worth it.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  How do you decide if an ad is political or not?
  - rrrx3 7y ago
    You don't take money from clients who are representing/selling anything other than goods or services. You evaluate creative & landing pages for each and every campaign. It's extremely simple. The problem is that FB wants to eschew all of the responsibility for content running through their platform and run everything 100% programmatically for scale. They expect the advertising user to know what's kosher vs what's not, and they expect the advertised-to user to moderate content. They refuse to put in place even the most basic of business controls. That strategy uh... doesn't work. As evidenced by their many FTC consent orders and massive fines.
knzhou 7y ago
That’s unfortunately naive —- as we’ve heard, these days “the personal is political”. To a lot of people, if you disallow politics you are also restricting personal expression. Banning politics would lead to yet another doubling of the avalanche of one-sided hit pieces out there.
tomohawk 7y ago
What's a political ad? Better yet, what's a NON-political ad? If McDonalds advertizes how good and healthy their Big Mac is, is it political? What if someone complains that it contradicts some pending legislation? What if someone complains about the racial make up of the cast in the ad? What if the ad mentions a word that later someone complains about? We live in a nation where we can't agree on what a man or woman is, and what that means. In fact, just talking about it is now political. So, who's going to judge whether something is political or not?
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  The boundary may be fuzzy, but that doesn't mean there aren't clear things like "if you're promoting or smearing a particular candidate for an elected political position, that's a political ad".
  - zo1 7y ago
    The clear outliers aren't the thing the OP was referring to. It is precisely the "fuzzy" ones in the middle that can be interpreted both ways depending on context and political leaning, etc.
    - Qwertystop 7y ago
      And I'm saying, don't pass judgement on the fuzzy ones. Draw the line where it's indisputable; you'll miss some but it's better than missing everything.
- rrrx3 7y ago
  There are clear, well-defined rules around what constitutes a political advertisement, published by the FEC. Some states have guidelines that go further. A smart place to start, instead of feigned ignorance or poorly constructed strawman arguments, might be there. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/advertising/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-di...
  - 7y ago
myhf 7y ago
Refusing to allow that content as paid ads doesn't make the content go away. It just makes people game the system to get views instead of paying for views. Then the moderation problem would be even harder.
bedhead 7y ago
Because fuck the lunatic fringe who think that some Russian troll spending $300,000 in ads in 2016 caused the election of Trump, that's why. (Incredibly, it's no longer a fringe issue, the left and their TDS has embraced this as mainstream) Why should Zuckerberg bow to the most paranoid and partisan people in our society who are asking the impossible?? And fuck the politicians (and whoever else) who thinks people are too stupid to make up their own minds regardless of a couple of advertisements. Zuckerberg is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't - he might as well take a stand, which he is sorta doing. Good to see some backbone from him. I'm no fan of Facebook but I'm so tired of seeing this company be scapegoated for all the world's problems, it's reaching totally hyperbolic levels and I'm sick of it. (Downvote away)
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  I've got comments trashing FB and Zuckerberg on HN from 2009. These people have managed to make Zuckerberg a sympathetic character to me. I wish you would tone down your rhetoric, however. I've been guilty of it myself and understand your frustrations, but it makes things worse.
  - bedhead 7y ago
    You're right, the point gets lost, I hear what you're saying. I guess it reflects that I'm tired of trying to have normal conversations about it, I feel like the people who blame everything on Facebook are completely unhinged.
    - 18pfsmt 7y ago
      They are unhinged. I've got worse things I've written than you because of my frustrations that I won't get into. We are in complete agreement, it seems, except on certain tactics. I will probably be more agreeable to your approach after 7pm, but I try to stay off HN after drinks.
      - bedhead 7y ago
        I toasted my old fashioned to you tonight.
moogly 7y ago
Because he will need it when he himself is running for office.

cryptozeus 7y ago

Non-financially is a big one...they can really determine the outcome of elections here , that is a power they don't want to loose

mliker 7y ago
> that is a power they don't want to lose What makes you think they want that power in the first place?
- maxdamantus 7y ago
  Because they get to sell that power (advertising space) to others.
- jeffshek 7y ago
  IIRC, Zuck has debated running in the future. Having Facebook with that power would probably benefit.
  - war1025 7y ago
    With the fit everyone threw over Trump having (relatively speaking) minor business connections, I'd hate to see what people would say over Zuckerberg running for any sort of office.
- baddox 7y ago
  I'm not really sure how to answer that question without just saying how extremely obvious it is that a massive national (and international) company would benefit massively from having influence over USA national politics.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    It is equally obvious that there would be an extreme backlash by politicians and regulators if facebook ever decides to (openly) use that power. Also, it would alienate at least half their user base. In short, why would they even want to be seen as possibly having that power?
    - baddox 7y ago
      Oh, to be clear, I suspect they definitely don't want to be seen as having (or using) that power.
- cryptozeus 7y ago
  Really ? It is obvious if you see their track record for last few years...I mean the ceo is having private dinner with both wings
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    It is obvious that the CEO of one of the biggest and most influential companies in the world would have dinner with world leaders. I'm not sure I see anything that supports your conclusion. Have you considered what evidence would make you change your mind?
- badrequest 7y ago
  Power doesn't just fall into people's laps, and normally those who don't want power falling into their laps take the first opportunity to reject it.

rrrx3 7y ago

Exactly. I work in digital advertising and we just don't take political or issue based campaigns. The spend isn't worth it. The hassle isn't worth it. The optics aren't worth it.

Miner49er 7y ago
How do you decide if an ad is political or not?
- rrrx3 7y ago
  You don't take money from clients who are representing/selling anything other than goods or services. You evaluate creative & landing pages for each and every campaign. It's extremely simple. The problem is that FB wants to eschew all of the responsibility for content running through their platform and run everything 100% programmatically for scale. They expect the advertising user to know what's kosher vs what's not, and they expect the advertised-to user to moderate content. They refuse to put in place even the most basic of business controls. That strategy uh... doesn't work. As evidenced by their many FTC consent orders and massive fines.

knzhou 7y ago

That’s unfortunately naive —- as we’ve heard, these days “the personal is political”. To a lot of people, if you disallow politics you are also restricting personal expression. Banning politics would lead to yet another doubling of the avalanche of one-sided hit pieces out there.

tomohawk 7y ago

What's a political ad? Better yet, what's a NON-political ad? If McDonalds advertizes how good and healthy their Big Mac is, is it political? What if someone complains that it contradicts some pending legislation? What if someone complains about the racial make up of the cast in the ad? What if the ad mentions a word that later someone complains about? We live in a nation where we can't agree on what a man or woman is, and what that means. In fact, just talking about it is now political. So, who's going to judge whether something is political or not?

Qwertystop 7y ago
The boundary may be fuzzy, but that doesn't mean there aren't clear things like "if you're promoting or smearing a particular candidate for an elected political position, that's a political ad".
- zo1 7y ago
  The clear outliers aren't the thing the OP was referring to. It is precisely the "fuzzy" ones in the middle that can be interpreted both ways depending on context and political leaning, etc.
  - Qwertystop 7y ago
    And I'm saying, don't pass judgement on the fuzzy ones. Draw the line where it's indisputable; you'll miss some but it's better than missing everything.
rrrx3 7y ago
There are clear, well-defined rules around what constitutes a political advertisement, published by the FEC. Some states have guidelines that go further. A smart place to start, instead of feigned ignorance or poorly constructed strawman arguments, might be there. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/advertising/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-di...
- 7y ago

myhf 7y ago

Refusing to allow that content as paid ads doesn't make the content go away. It just makes people game the system to get views instead of paying for views. Then the moderation problem would be even harder.

bedhead 7y ago

Because fuck the lunatic fringe who think that some Russian troll spending $300,000 in ads in 2016 caused the election of Trump, that's why. (Incredibly, it's no longer a fringe issue, the left and their TDS has embraced this as mainstream) Why should Zuckerberg bow to the most paranoid and partisan people in our society who are asking the impossible?? And fuck the politicians (and whoever else) who thinks people are too stupid to make up their own minds regardless of a couple of advertisements. Zuckerberg is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't - he might as well take a stand, which he is sorta doing. Good to see some backbone from him. I'm no fan of Facebook but I'm so tired of seeing this company be scapegoated for all the world's problems, it's reaching totally hyperbolic levels and I'm sick of it. (Downvote away)

18pfsmt 7y ago
I've got comments trashing FB and Zuckerberg on HN from 2009. These people have managed to make Zuckerberg a sympathetic character to me. I wish you would tone down your rhetoric, however. I've been guilty of it myself and understand your frustrations, but it makes things worse.
- bedhead 7y ago
  You're right, the point gets lost, I hear what you're saying. I guess it reflects that I'm tired of trying to have normal conversations about it, I feel like the people who blame everything on Facebook are completely unhinged.
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    They are unhinged. I've got worse things I've written than you because of my frustrations that I won't get into. We are in complete agreement, it seems, except on certain tactics. I will probably be more agreeable to your approach after 7pm, but I try to stay off HN after drinks.
    - bedhead 7y ago
      I toasted my old fashioned to you tonight.

moogly 7y ago

Because he will need it when he himself is running for office.