3 ms·
>It's technically easy to do. You hire a roomful of people to vet advertising, similar to how every media company did it until 2010 or so. But it's not a room
by Mirioron 7y ago
>It's technically easy to do. You hire a roomful of people to vet advertising, similar to how every media company did it until 2010 or so.
But it's not a room full of people. Facebook doesn't only exist in the US and I doubt that people from the US will be good at vetting political ads in Poland.
What's even worse is that at that point you're asking Facebook to censor political ads based on what Facebook thinks is right. Do you really think that Facebook wouldn't be labeled biased and there wouldn't be even further demands from them?
This is easy to do in the example of a health clinic, because there is a right and wrong answer, but in politics that's not the case.
- kstrauser 7y agoI think it's entirely reasonable that they have at least one review department per market that they want to serve. Again, that's the way the ad business worked until very, very recently. It's not like some onerous idea made up just for them. You're drawing a false dichotomy about censorship. There's a normal, accepted middle ground between oppressive censorship and anarchy, often referred to as "ad checking" or "editorial review". Right now I can use an automated system to buy an ad saying "Trump Eats Babies" or "Obama Isn't a Citizen" or other flat-out lies. This is wrong. There should be a human in the mix who does at least minimal verification.
- Mirioron 7y agoYeah? And if Facebook then blocks all of the "Trump Eats Babies" ads, but lets all of the "Obama Isn't a Citizen" through? Now one party gets to take full advantage of this. If it's done close enough to the election then there's no remedy available for it either. Sure, you might sanction Facebook for it, but the other party already won the election.