3 ms·

> You just said you yourself were able to identify them. Why couldn’t someone else? Because as I also said, anybody else would likely make different judgements

> You just said you yourself were able to identify them. Why couldn’t someone else? Because as I also said, anybody else would likely make different judgements. The assessment I described is entirely my own opinion, and it would be impossible for me (or anybody else) to make any form of assessment that wasn’t influenced by opinion. > And, suppose they were missing from your News Feed. How much would you miss them? I personally don’t care about ads at all. But you’re understating how extreme your suggestion is. News outlets would be excluded from any sort of promotion on FB. Basically any NGO would be excluded, including environmental groups. I would expect such an extreme idea to have a very strong justification, and I can’t see anything other than FB employees not liking it. > Finally, I’d love to hear about some of these “ads for products that have political messaging” Nike and Gillette have two incredibly high profile examples. There’s plenty of smaller ones too. Any company that participates in pride month is delivering a political message. The issue with classifying political speech is that it depends much more on the views of the audience than it does the content of the speech. The graphics used in a weather report would be considered politically charged by a flat earther. It is simply not possible for FB to take a neutral position on this matter, so your choice is between FB taking a political stance on what election ads are allowed on its platform, or having FB not moderate them.

otterley 7y ago
I’m not sure I agree it’s such a big problem, other than having to upset some advertisers by declining advertisements that used to get automatic acceptance. Remember, Facebook is still a private enterprise and they’re under no obligation to make everyone (or anyone) happy. They are free to limit activity they find inconsistent with their moral view, just like Apple does. And also keep in mind, these are ads we’re talking about. People who want to publish political speech can still do so on their own pages or status updates, but they won’t get paid distribution into users’ news feeds.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  If you accept the argument that forbidding political ads is not possible, then I guess it depends on how much you care about large corporations ability to interfere with democratic processes. Having FB act as the gatekeeper to which political ads are allowed on the worlds largest social media platforms, and which are not seems like a pretty bad outcome to me. > Remember, Facebook is still a private enterprise and they’re under no obligation to make everyone (or anyone) happy. Sure, but this is kinda irrelevant to the discussion about what they should do, or more importantly, what they should be allowed to do. The concept of Net Neutrality would be an almost identical violation of freedom of association, but it’s a regulation with a huge amount of popular support.
  - otterley 7y ago
    > If you accept the argument that forbidding political ads is not possible I don’t agree (at least insofar as this is their policy and not, say, a legal restriction). I think they can get reasonably close using good judgment, and there will always be arguments about the edges. Such is life. We can’t let perfection be the enemy of the good. None of this argument is about regulation or coercion, by the way. This is really about what I think their own policies should be, not about government regulation of political speech, which is an even bigger minefield.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      I’d say this stance is based on the presupposition that a solution implemented imperfectly is in fact good, or at least better than no solution implemented at all. You say yourself that this would require FB to make (naturally subjective) judgements about what is or is not political. The very best case scenario would be that FB ends up marginalizing fringe views. But would you even trust FB as an organisation to reach a level of neutrality where only the most fringe views were marginalized? I certainly wouldn’t. The alternative is simply that FB leaves it up to the audience to make their own judgements about the credibility of the content they view, something I’d consider to be a far superior outcome. Nothing FB does will ever relieve people of the burden of thinking for themselves.
      - otterley 7y ago
        > I’d say this stance is based on the presupposition that a solution implemented imperfectly is in fact good, or at least better than no solution implemented at all. Yes. :) > You say yourself that this would require FB to make (naturally subjective) judgements about what is or is not political. The very best case scenario would be that FB ends up marginalizing fringe views. That sounds good to me! > But would you even trust FB as an organisation to reach a level of neutrality where only the most fringe views were marginalized? I certainly wouldn’t. Why not? We have no evidence to suggest they'd be terrible at it. > The alternative is simply that FB leaves it up to the audience to make their own judgements about the credibility of the content they view, something I’d consider to be a far superior outcome. Do you really consider the current state of affairs to be superior and/or ideal? Perhaps I would agree with you in a perfect world where more people were naturally distrustful of content, but we've seen that a large segment of the population is not particularly good at separating the wheat from the chaff. Case in point: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/media/russia-trolls-facebook-events/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/media/russia-trolls-faceboo...

otterley 7y ago

I’m not sure I agree it’s such a big problem, other than having to upset some advertisers by declining advertisements that used to get automatic acceptance. Remember, Facebook is still a private enterprise and they’re under no obligation to make everyone (or anyone) happy. They are free to limit activity they find inconsistent with their moral view, just like Apple does. And also keep in mind, these are ads we’re talking about. People who want to publish political speech can still do so on their own pages or status updates, but they won’t get paid distribution into users’ news feeds.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
If you accept the argument that forbidding political ads is not possible, then I guess it depends on how much you care about large corporations ability to interfere with democratic processes. Having FB act as the gatekeeper to which political ads are allowed on the worlds largest social media platforms, and which are not seems like a pretty bad outcome to me. > Remember, Facebook is still a private enterprise and they’re under no obligation to make everyone (or anyone) happy. Sure, but this is kinda irrelevant to the discussion about what they should do, or more importantly, what they should be allowed to do. The concept of Net Neutrality would be an almost identical violation of freedom of association, but it’s a regulation with a huge amount of popular support.
- otterley 7y ago
  > If you accept the argument that forbidding political ads is not possible I don’t agree (at least insofar as this is their policy and not, say, a legal restriction). I think they can get reasonably close using good judgment, and there will always be arguments about the edges. Such is life. We can’t let perfection be the enemy of the good. None of this argument is about regulation or coercion, by the way. This is really about what I think their own policies should be, not about government regulation of political speech, which is an even bigger minefield.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    I’d say this stance is based on the presupposition that a solution implemented imperfectly is in fact good, or at least better than no solution implemented at all. You say yourself that this would require FB to make (naturally subjective) judgements about what is or is not political. The very best case scenario would be that FB ends up marginalizing fringe views. But would you even trust FB as an organisation to reach a level of neutrality where only the most fringe views were marginalized? I certainly wouldn’t. The alternative is simply that FB leaves it up to the audience to make their own judgements about the credibility of the content they view, something I’d consider to be a far superior outcome. Nothing FB does will ever relieve people of the burden of thinking for themselves.
    - otterley 7y ago
      > I’d say this stance is based on the presupposition that a solution implemented imperfectly is in fact good, or at least better than no solution implemented at all. Yes. :) > You say yourself that this would require FB to make (naturally subjective) judgements about what is or is not political. The very best case scenario would be that FB ends up marginalizing fringe views. That sounds good to me! > But would you even trust FB as an organisation to reach a level of neutrality where only the most fringe views were marginalized? I certainly wouldn’t. Why not? We have no evidence to suggest they'd be terrible at it. > The alternative is simply that FB leaves it up to the audience to make their own judgements about the credibility of the content they view, something I’d consider to be a far superior outcome. Do you really consider the current state of affairs to be superior and/or ideal? Perhaps I would agree with you in a perfect world where more people were naturally distrustful of content, but we've seen that a large segment of the population is not particularly good at separating the wheat from the chaff. Case in point: https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/media/russia-trolls-facebook-events/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/26/media/russia-trolls-faceboo...