4 ms·

Why does this come up in 2019 for the first time? How did Newspapers, Radio and then TV handle this for the past 1200 years?

tvelichkov 7y ago
I guess because on Newspapers, Radio and TV you cannot target a specific group of people. Yes, someone can argue that you can target a specific Newspaper, Radio or TV which may have a specific group of people, but I think its not the same.
throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
They were regulated.
nathanlied 7y ago
I don't know if you're posing a rhetorical question, but I'd genuinely like to know this. Lying in politics isn't new, and political ads are also not new. Is lying in political ads a new thing? If not, why is it a problem now? Is it because of how many people they can reach? Are the lies somehow worse? Or is this somewhat of an overreaction to the 2016 election, which was a confluence of factors, only one of which was social media (and ad) manipulation?
- uneekname 7y ago
  I think this comment gets at something that has been bugging me about the Facebook advertising problem: I still don't see it as a problem. Yes, I disagree with dishonest political ads, and wish they didn't run on Facebook. But I don't see the need to change Facebook. As long as their terms of service are honest, I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want. If people don't like it, they can leave.
  - nathanlied 7y ago
    I think the argument around it reeks of dishonesty, really. People arguing against political ads or speech on Facebook are often skirting around the main elephantine problem of democracy: most people are disinterested or maliciously misinformed (as in, when presented with facts, they'll double down on their misinformation). In order to solve this whole kerfuffle, we'll have to tackle that head-on. That people are misinformed, disinterested, and downright apathetic. You can ban political ads on Facebook tomorrow, and it won't solve those fundamental problems. It's just kicking the can down the road.
- kick 7y ago
  On the other side of that: What if it's always been a problem? What if it's gotten worse by being able to segregate audiences painlessly? What if in the past there's just never been a single entity that could largely solve the problem? What if this single entity could fix a long-standing political problem and as a result make the outcome of politics better for everyone?
- rexpop 7y ago
  In the "social" aspect of social media, identity can be really well laundered. That's how we get something like a page operated out of a Kremlin contractor's office claiming to be run by a Black American.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  It's 2016. In 2008 and 2012 social media advertising was lauded as essentially "just another tool in the war chest to deploy on the campaign battleground". How that we've seen how things can go ... not as planned, people are looking for an out. And that's okay. Two things can be true: it was a new and interesting approach in 2008/2012 but now we've had enough of it and think there needs to be a correction. I still reread this[1] from time to time to remind myself how much things have changed. The article is spot on, but not in the way that the author I'm sure expected. All of these predictions came true, it just wasn't the utopia they bargained for. >The John McCain campaign, for example, originally said that Governor Sarah Palin opposed the so-called bridge to nowhere in Alaska, Ms. Huffington said. “Online there was an absolutely obsessive campaign to prove that wrong,” she said, and eventually the campaign stopped repeating it. >“In 2004, trust me, they would have gone on repeating it, because the echo chamber would not have been as facile,” Ms. Huffington said. >“There will be a lot of collateral damage coming to grips with the fact that we’re in a reality TV series, ‘Politics 24/7,’” Mr. Newsom said. >That’s a good thing, Mr. Trippi said. “This medium demands authenticity, and television for the most part demanded fake. Authenticity is something politicians haven’t been used to.” >“When Congress refuses to go with his agenda, it’s not going to be just the president” they oppose, Mr. Trippi said. It will be the president and his huge virtual network of citizens. [1]https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-interne...
- dijit 7y ago
  If newspapers only had one publication, then it would be valid. As it happens: Facebook allows tailored, targeted advertising that leaves no trace. So lies on the platform are especially damaging because they cannot be disseminated. And additionally it's a single platform, seemingly a single voice, so they have much more social responsibility than a fragmented assortment of publications which have different views and opinions. -- Newspapers tend to have a lot of actual story, and the stories themselves are subject to certain laws regarding truth. The ads themselves are rarely political, usually it's the stories that are.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tails4e 7y ago
Exactly. Advertising in traditional mediums has been controlled and kept (mostly) honest for years, and this standard should be maintained and carried to all mediums. In fact some countries have much stricter regulations on advertising than the US and manage to maintain them jist fine. There's no technical or other reason online advertising should be allowed to be so open to abuse.
dfxm12 7y ago
Why does this come up in 2019 for the first time? A combination of the perceived effect Facebook has had in elections over the past half decade or so and the fact that an election is coming up that many Facebook staff has an interest in, among other things. How did Newspapers, Radio and then TV handle this for the past 1200 years? I can't speak for all jurisdictions and certainly not going back that far, but in the USA, FWIW, there are federal regulations around the ads you're asking about that don't exist for online ads. Whether these regulations affect how truthful the ads are is certainly up for debate.
xiphias2 7y ago
None of them allow microtargeting. Watch the Brexit film if you want to see how well it works compared to the other media.
kstrauser 7y ago
They removed humans from the loop. "Wargames" and "The Terminator" showed possible outcomes from that, and the real world effect is just as scary but in different ways.

tvelichkov 7y ago

I guess because on Newspapers, Radio and TV you cannot target a specific group of people. Yes, someone can argue that you can target a specific Newspaper, Radio or TV which may have a specific group of people, but I think its not the same.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

They were regulated.

nathanlied 7y ago

I don't know if you're posing a rhetorical question, but I'd genuinely like to know this. Lying in politics isn't new, and political ads are also not new. Is lying in political ads a new thing? If not, why is it a problem now? Is it because of how many people they can reach? Are the lies somehow worse? Or is this somewhat of an overreaction to the 2016 election, which was a confluence of factors, only one of which was social media (and ad) manipulation?

uneekname 7y ago
I think this comment gets at something that has been bugging me about the Facebook advertising problem: I still don't see it as a problem. Yes, I disagree with dishonest political ads, and wish they didn't run on Facebook. But I don't see the need to change Facebook. As long as their terms of service are honest, I think they should be allowed to do whatever they want. If people don't like it, they can leave.
- nathanlied 7y ago
  I think the argument around it reeks of dishonesty, really. People arguing against political ads or speech on Facebook are often skirting around the main elephantine problem of democracy: most people are disinterested or maliciously misinformed (as in, when presented with facts, they'll double down on their misinformation). In order to solve this whole kerfuffle, we'll have to tackle that head-on. That people are misinformed, disinterested, and downright apathetic. You can ban political ads on Facebook tomorrow, and it won't solve those fundamental problems. It's just kicking the can down the road.
kick 7y ago
On the other side of that: What if it's always been a problem? What if it's gotten worse by being able to segregate audiences painlessly? What if in the past there's just never been a single entity that could largely solve the problem? What if this single entity could fix a long-standing political problem and as a result make the outcome of politics better for everyone?
rexpop 7y ago
In the "social" aspect of social media, identity can be really well laundered. That's how we get something like a page operated out of a Kremlin contractor's office claiming to be run by a Black American.
remarkEon 7y ago
It's 2016. In 2008 and 2012 social media advertising was lauded as essentially "just another tool in the war chest to deploy on the campaign battleground". How that we've seen how things can go ... not as planned, people are looking for an out. And that's okay. Two things can be true: it was a new and interesting approach in 2008/2012 but now we've had enough of it and think there needs to be a correction. I still reread this[1] from time to time to remind myself how much things have changed. The article is spot on, but not in the way that the author I'm sure expected. All of these predictions came true, it just wasn't the utopia they bargained for. >The John McCain campaign, for example, originally said that Governor Sarah Palin opposed the so-called bridge to nowhere in Alaska, Ms. Huffington said. “Online there was an absolutely obsessive campaign to prove that wrong,” she said, and eventually the campaign stopped repeating it. >“In 2004, trust me, they would have gone on repeating it, because the echo chamber would not have been as facile,” Ms. Huffington said. >“There will be a lot of collateral damage coming to grips with the fact that we’re in a reality TV series, ‘Politics 24/7,’” Mr. Newsom said. >That’s a good thing, Mr. Trippi said. “This medium demands authenticity, and television for the most part demanded fake. Authenticity is something politicians haven’t been used to.” >“When Congress refuses to go with his agenda, it’s not going to be just the president” they oppose, Mr. Trippi said. It will be the president and his huge virtual network of citizens. [1]https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-internet-campaign-changed-politics/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas-interne...
dijit 7y ago
If newspapers only had one publication, then it would be valid. As it happens: Facebook allows tailored, targeted advertising that leaves no trace. So lies on the platform are especially damaging because they cannot be disseminated. And additionally it's a single platform, seemingly a single voice, so they have much more social responsibility than a fragmented assortment of publications which have different views and opinions. -- Newspapers tend to have a lot of actual story, and the stories themselves are subject to certain laws regarding truth. The ads themselves are rarely political, usually it's the stories that are.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tails4e 7y ago

Exactly. Advertising in traditional mediums has been controlled and kept (mostly) honest for years, and this standard should be maintained and carried to all mediums. In fact some countries have much stricter regulations on advertising than the US and manage to maintain them jist fine. There's no technical or other reason online advertising should be allowed to be so open to abuse.

dfxm12 7y ago

Why does this come up in 2019 for the first time? A combination of the perceived effect Facebook has had in elections over the past half decade or so and the fact that an election is coming up that many Facebook staff has an interest in, among other things. How did Newspapers, Radio and then TV handle this for the past 1200 years? I can't speak for all jurisdictions and certainly not going back that far, but in the USA, FWIW, there are federal regulations around the ads you're asking about that don't exist for online ads. Whether these regulations affect how truthful the ads are is certainly up for debate.

xiphias2 7y ago

None of them allow microtargeting. Watch the Brexit film if you want to see how well it works compared to the other media.

kstrauser 7y ago

They removed humans from the loop. "Wargames" and "The Terminator" showed possible outcomes from that, and the real world effect is just as scary but in different ways.