4 ms·

If that were the case then there is no truth in society and/or the facts are so hard to find that there effectively isn’t a democracy. Given that last election

by yoav 7y ago

If that were the case then there is no truth in society and/or the facts are so hard to find that there effectively isn’t a democracy. Given that last election they took large sums of foreign currency for political ads, had representatives in cambridge analitica’s HQ / war room, happen to profit astronomically from increased engagement due to division and disinformation, and their own employees with insider knowledge are also calling the stance out. It seems wildly strange in that context, when Facebook could easily take the stance that it’s hard and they might not get it right but will try anyway, instead of bogus misinterpretation of free speech that is Zuck’s current stated position.

michaelmarion 7y ago
If that were the case then there is no truth in society and/or the facts are so hard to find that there effectively isn’t a democracy. Now you're getting it!
Mirioron 7y ago
>It seems wildly strange in that context, when Facebook could easily take the stance that it’s hard and they might not get it right but will try anyway, instead of bogus misinterpretation of free speech that is Zuck’s current stated position. Because not getting it right can actually be worse for society, because at that point Facebook is picking and choosing who gets to run political ads. This should be terrifying considering that some of these tech companies have so many oopsies when it comes to certain political leanings. What do you think the calls will be like about Facebook when it turns out that one side in politics tends to not get to run their ads on Facebook while the other side can?
- yoav 7y ago
  Not running ads with blatant lies is not partisan. Having a policy of allowing all lies and providing tools for sale to microtarget users so that people can’t validate truth only favors politicians pushing lies and not people viewing them. Facebook not removing ads with blatant lies is bad enough, but their product is now positioned as a disinformation tool. Instead of using targeting to match people who need products with those product ads, they’re openly announcing their product as a tool for corrupt politicians to target voters with disinformation. You don’t need a cambridge analytica to steal Facebook data for targeting when Facebook is offering that same service directly

by yoav 7y ago

michaelmarion 7y ago

If that were the case then there is no truth in society and/or the facts are so hard to find that there effectively isn’t a democracy. Now you're getting it!

Mirioron 7y ago

>It seems wildly strange in that context, when Facebook could easily take the stance that it’s hard and they might not get it right but will try anyway, instead of bogus misinterpretation of free speech that is Zuck’s current stated position. Because not getting it right can actually be worse for society, because at that point Facebook is picking and choosing who gets to run political ads. This should be terrifying considering that some of these tech companies have so many oopsies when it comes to certain political leanings. What do you think the calls will be like about Facebook when it turns out that one side in politics tends to not get to run their ads on Facebook while the other side can?

yoav 7y ago
Not running ads with blatant lies is not partisan. Having a policy of allowing all lies and providing tools for sale to microtarget users so that people can’t validate truth only favors politicians pushing lies and not people viewing them. Facebook not removing ads with blatant lies is bad enough, but their product is now positioned as a disinformation tool. Instead of using targeting to match people who need products with those product ads, they’re openly announcing their product as a tool for corrupt politicians to target voters with disinformation. You don’t need a cambridge analytica to steal Facebook data for targeting when Facebook is offering that same service directly