5 ms·

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is ex

I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to promote their voice. I have very little concern that the opinions of those with large quantities of money at their disposal are underrepresented in politics, or do not have the ability to make their voices heard.

texuf 7y ago
Just because I’m subscribed to someone on social media doesn’t mean they show up in my feed. That change happened long ago. It’s only guaranteed to show up if they pay.
- aggie 7y ago
  It's not going to show up in everyone's feed if you pay either. You're just talking degrees of exposure. Getting to 100% of eyeballs vs. 80% or 10% is arbitrary.
- r00fus 7y ago
  So Facebook - who controls your feed (and made said change) now wants to say that their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed shouldn't be questioned?
  - semiotagonal 7y ago
    > their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed It's not your feed, it's their feed; you're just the person eating it.
    - fermenflo 7y ago
      Thank you... Everyone seems to be forgetting that this is a 100% opt-in service. Why do we get to say what FB is obligated to do and to what standards they have to keep their website at?
      - semiotagonal 7y ago
        Well, when it establishes a dominant position in the market using tactics that are no longer allowed, we do get a right to say that they should be broken up, or forced to start from scratch without their user data. My own two cents is that Facebook should be dismantled to restore competition, then be allowed to do whatever it wants.
        TooSmugToFail 7y ago
        Facebook should be dismantled because they effectively broke democracy. From the earliest of its beginnings, one of the greatest flaws of democracy was masses being susceptible to manipulation, and Facebook massively amplified this. It has been repeatedly and reliably used for manipulation of voters with unprecedented effectiveness and on an unprecedented scale. Trump and Brexit showed that even the oldest and most mature democracies are not impervious to such manipulation. I was shocked how Facebook's Libra initiative quickly detracted people: all of a sudden, we're all discussing whether they should be allowed to run crypto currency, and nobody is talking about how they broke democracy. Almost as if the whole Libra thing is a giant distraction...
      - core-questions 7y ago
        Because Facebook occupies a nearly-monopolistic position that has somewhat replaced the public square in modern life. It's not just any other service, anymore; it's far bigger and needs to be legislated upon as such.
      - Braggadocious 7y ago
        I would argue facebook isn't a 100% opt in service at all. When political advertising on facebook won Trump the election, that changed the global landscape for everyone, regardless whether they were on facebook or not. It's like saying the automotive industry or the oil industry are a 100% opt in service, so why regulate them either? Facebook has as much of a tailpipe as any other commercial enterprise with effects felt by everyone.
xwowsersx 7y ago
Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.
- newen 7y ago
  That's why people build movements, why activism is a thing. Money shortcuts all of that and gives undue voice to people with the most money.
  - aluminussoma 7y ago
    Is activism so pure? The activists I see have nice signs and people protesting during business hours when the rest of us are working. Printing good signs costs money. There is big money behind a lot of activists, just better hidden.
    - nicpottier 7y ago
      Maybe at least that's creating some employment opportunities? Especially in an auction model like Facebooks we are spending millions (billions?) in a zero sum game where people bid against each other to no benefit except Facebook's.
  - jackinloadup 7y ago
    By that definition people who want to voice their opinions shouldn't pay for any service which would amplify that voice. That could be a sign, megaphone, stage, internet, website, youtube channel (camera). If I'm able to have more signs or youtube channels people will pay more attention to me and thus I'm using an advantage the other party may not have the financial ability to respond to. I think this idea could go further but it seems obvious that money is another unbiased tool to promote your speech. Money doesn't have a political affiliation. People can use money in a biased way just like they can use a camera, tv channel, or sign to have a bias. The medium isn't biased the way it's used is.
    - 7y ago
lonelappde 7y ago
Why do people with extra time get to be heard more than people with extra money? I don't have the ability to take 20% time off my work to promote my message, but I have saved up some money.
- notSupplied 7y ago
  One can have 1000x more money than a middle class person, but there are no "time billionaires"
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to promote their voice. What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically those of someone with the money to promote their voice. Suppose you have an idea in your head and you want to get it out there. The first thing you have to do is express that idea. Write it down or create a video etc. That takes time, which is an opportunity cost. If it takes you an hour, that's an hour you couldn't spend working for money, which means that somebody who has to spend that time working for money doesn't have the time to express their idea. On top of that, the more time you spend polishing your expression, the more convincing you can make it, so right off the bat there is a direct relationship between time/money and speech. Then you need to get people to look at it. If all you do is write a document that sits in a drawer in your house, nobody will ever see it. So you need to spend more time distributing your idea, or get other people who are willing to spend their time distributing it. Political advertising is just paying a third party to do that for you. It costs less than hiring a staff of people to promote the idea "organically" (otherwise it would be poor value for money and nobody would pay for it), which means it enables people with less money to get their message in front of people.
- pm90 7y ago
  I don't really get your point. What you're saying is that a good message takes a lot of resources to communicate effectively. That is true regardless of whether you can use social media to promote those messages. Conversely, targeted advertisement lets you bombard people with certain inclinations with ads that nudge them to behave in a certain way. That isn't free speech, its targeted manipulation. The targeting is whats important here. For selling goods and services, its fine. For selling leaders or tarnishing leaders, its evil.
  - EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago
    The Facebook shills are certainly not foreign to the influencer group that is HN if you track recent news discussions.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
bobcostas55 7y ago
If a group wants to write an article, they can just write an article. Newspapers increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money?

texuf 7y ago

Just because I’m subscribed to someone on social media doesn’t mean they show up in my feed. That change happened long ago. It’s only guaranteed to show up if they pay.

aggie 7y ago
It's not going to show up in everyone's feed if you pay either. You're just talking degrees of exposure. Getting to 100% of eyeballs vs. 80% or 10% is arbitrary.
r00fus 7y ago
So Facebook - who controls your feed (and made said change) now wants to say that their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed shouldn't be questioned?
- semiotagonal 7y ago
  > their right to prioritize (based on money) what stuff goes on your feed It's not your feed, it's their feed; you're just the person eating it.
  - fermenflo 7y ago
    Thank you... Everyone seems to be forgetting that this is a 100% opt-in service. Why do we get to say what FB is obligated to do and to what standards they have to keep their website at?
    - semiotagonal 7y ago
      Well, when it establishes a dominant position in the market using tactics that are no longer allowed, we do get a right to say that they should be broken up, or forced to start from scratch without their user data. My own two cents is that Facebook should be dismantled to restore competition, then be allowed to do whatever it wants.
      - TooSmugToFail 7y ago
        Facebook should be dismantled because they effectively broke democracy. From the earliest of its beginnings, one of the greatest flaws of democracy was masses being susceptible to manipulation, and Facebook massively amplified this. It has been repeatedly and reliably used for manipulation of voters with unprecedented effectiveness and on an unprecedented scale. Trump and Brexit showed that even the oldest and most mature democracies are not impervious to such manipulation. I was shocked how Facebook's Libra initiative quickly detracted people: all of a sudden, we're all discussing whether they should be allowed to run crypto currency, and nobody is talking about how they broke democracy. Almost as if the whole Libra thing is a giant distraction...
    - core-questions 7y ago
      Because Facebook occupies a nearly-monopolistic position that has somewhat replaced the public square in modern life. It's not just any other service, anymore; it's far bigger and needs to be legislated upon as such.
    - Braggadocious 7y ago
      I would argue facebook isn't a 100% opt in service at all. When political advertising on facebook won Trump the election, that changed the global landscape for everyone, regardless whether they were on facebook or not. It's like saying the automotive industry or the oil industry are a 100% opt in service, so why regulate them either? Facebook has as much of a tailpipe as any other commercial enterprise with effects felt by everyone.

xwowsersx 7y ago

Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.

newen 7y ago
That's why people build movements, why activism is a thing. Money shortcuts all of that and gives undue voice to people with the most money.
- aluminussoma 7y ago
  Is activism so pure? The activists I see have nice signs and people protesting during business hours when the rest of us are working. Printing good signs costs money. There is big money behind a lot of activists, just better hidden.
  - nicpottier 7y ago
    Maybe at least that's creating some employment opportunities? Especially in an auction model like Facebooks we are spending millions (billions?) in a zero sum game where people bid against each other to no benefit except Facebook's.
- jackinloadup 7y ago
  By that definition people who want to voice their opinions shouldn't pay for any service which would amplify that voice. That could be a sign, megaphone, stage, internet, website, youtube channel (camera). If I'm able to have more signs or youtube channels people will pay more attention to me and thus I'm using an advantage the other party may not have the financial ability to respond to. I think this idea could go further but it seems obvious that money is another unbiased tool to promote your speech. Money doesn't have a political affiliation. People can use money in a biased way just like they can use a camera, tv channel, or sign to have a bias. The medium isn't biased the way it's used is.
  - 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago

Why do people with extra time get to be heard more than people with extra money? I don't have the ability to take 20% time off my work to promote my message, but I have saved up some money.

notSupplied 7y ago
One can have 1000x more money than a middle class person, but there are no "time billionaires"

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to promote their voice. What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically those of someone with the money to promote their voice. Suppose you have an idea in your head and you want to get it out there. The first thing you have to do is express that idea. Write it down or create a video etc. That takes time, which is an opportunity cost. If it takes you an hour, that's an hour you couldn't spend working for money, which means that somebody who has to spend that time working for money doesn't have the time to express their idea. On top of that, the more time you spend polishing your expression, the more convincing you can make it, so right off the bat there is a direct relationship between time/money and speech. Then you need to get people to look at it. If all you do is write a document that sits in a drawer in your house, nobody will ever see it. So you need to spend more time distributing your idea, or get other people who are willing to spend their time distributing it. Political advertising is just paying a third party to do that for you. It costs less than hiring a staff of people to promote the idea "organically" (otherwise it would be poor value for money and nobody would pay for it), which means it enables people with less money to get their message in front of people.

pm90 7y ago
I don't really get your point. What you're saying is that a good message takes a lot of resources to communicate effectively. That is true regardless of whether you can use social media to promote those messages. Conversely, targeted advertisement lets you bombard people with certain inclinations with ads that nudge them to behave in a certain way. That isn't free speech, its targeted manipulation. The targeting is whats important here. For selling goods and services, its fine. For selling leaders or tarnishing leaders, its evil.
- EsssM7QVMehFPAs 7y ago
  The Facebook shills are certainly not foreign to the influencer group that is HN if you track recent news discussions.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago

bobcostas55 7y ago

If a group wants to write an article, they can just write an article. Newspapers increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money?