5 ms·

Why is that Facebook's responsibility? If someone advertises something illegal or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who pos

Why is that Facebook's responsibility? If someone advertises something illegal or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who posted the ad right? In newpapers, billboards etc. When a magical cure company makes false claims about the efficacy of their products, you sue the company, not the newpaper who printed the ad. Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range? That's what laws and courts are for.

brettnak 7y ago
Because they are made of human beings and live on planet Earth. A better question is why do we think companies shouldn't care about that? Why isn't it their responsibility?
- pstuart 7y ago
  Because making money is all that matters and any interference of that is bad? /s I'm so tired of libertarian fairy tales.
- LudwigNagasena 7y ago
  Because a system where companies maximize profits and government punishes unethical behavior according to the rule of law is a cornerstone of liberal society that many highly respected thinkers advocated for since the start of the Age of Enlightenment.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Because a system where companies maximize profits and government punishes unethical behavior according to the rule of law is a cornerstone of liberal society that many highly respected thinkers advocated for since the start of the Age of Enlightenment. It's frankly unworkable to outsource morality and ethics to the government, even if you allow extreme surveillance and control. The law is there to catch serious cases where personal ethics and morality have failed. Yeah, that contradicts the DRY principle [1], but life isn't a software system. Also, IIRC, the idea that the "system" is one were "companies [merely] maximize profits" within legal limits set by the government is a rather recent but false view [2]. The Age of Enlightenment didn't start in the 1970s. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself [2] This seems to give a decent summary: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stout_Corporate-Issues.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stout_C...
- megaman821 7y ago
  Why is this a standard being uniquely applied to Facebook? There are ads for x-ray glasses in magazines. The are commercials for security products with many lies running on all the cable news networks. I tend the think the source of the lie is the thing that should be attacked. Who has the most responsibility here: the advertiser for lying, the network for showing the lie, the ISP for delivering the content with a lie, the laptop for displaying the lie?
  - threeseed 7y ago
    Simple answer. With magazines, television etc you are targeting everyone. So if you run an ad that said "Vote for me because I will build a border wall" then you will attract 30% of the population and alienate the other 70%. With Facebook you can just target that 30% whilst guaranteeing the 70% won't be affected since they won't see the ads. That is the feature that is unique to Facebook that is causing all of the problems.
    - k1e 7y ago
      What problems is it causing? How does not affecting other "70%" change things?
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        Let's say you have two groups of people. One group is pro-skub, the other group is anti-skub. If you run an ad in the newspaper that says 'pro-skub people want to literally kill all anti-skubs', that is broadcasted to everyone. People outside of the target group can independently fact check it and/or apply pressure to the paper itself to remove an obviously fake and inflammatory ad. Now let's say you run that same ad on Bookface. You target specifically the anti-skub people, and especially those that are already predisposed against those that are pro-skub. Even if your ad is obviously fake, you're contributing to the radicalization of a group which increases divisiveness. This becomes much harder to independently fact check because when you search that ad on Dooble you find results which seem to reinforce that ads message because all of these algorithms are optimizing for engagement.
baddox 7y ago
No, Facebook should not allow someone to run an ad promoting genocide. They should not wait for the issue to go to court.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Personally I don’t think they would run an ad for genocide. This is pretty easy to decide. But there are plenty of other areas where it’s much harder to determine if an ad is ok without being too political.
pjc50 7y ago
Laws are very hard to enforce internationally and against unknown persons. Facebook ads are opaque. If they wanted to disclaim responsibility, they should start with an impressum: a click to show who the person is in your country who can be prosecuted for misleading ads.
reaperducer 7y ago
If someone advertises something illegal or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who posted the ad right? In newpapers, billboards etc. No. In newspapers and billboards there are human beings involved who have sense enough to make sure things like this don't happen (thought there are cases where bosses will override common sense). For Google and Facebook, everything is automated so there is zero accountability by design. And when something goes wrong, SV companies point fingers at algorithms and put out pithy press releases saying, "We can do better" but things only seem to get worse.
save_ferris 7y ago
> If someone advertises something illegal or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who posted the ad right? Not true, there are laws that govern what can and cannot be advertised, and how. The reason cigarette companies don't publish TV or print ads is because the government made it illegal to do so. Publishers would face legal action for running illegal ads. > Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range? They already have this authority, and they choose again and again to exercise zero discretion. The fact that we're arguing over whether or not FB should have the right to choose whether or not to run these types of ads is so absurd.
klarstrup 7y ago
>Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range? Do they currently not hold such power?
variable11 7y ago
If someone advertises for hitmen, drugs, illegal images, and other crap on Facebook, how is that Facebook's fault? Sorry the Backpage.com defense is already done with, rhe courts have ruled against your pathetic willful ignorance defense.
mch82 7y ago
Publishers are responsible & accountable to the FCC and FTC in the United States. Facebook’s entire argument, until recently, is that they aren’t a publisher. For TV “The FCC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material.” https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadc... And the Federal Trade Commission... “When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.” https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert... The reason we hear about magical cures in spam email & telemarketing is precisely because publishers are held accountable for what they publish & don’t allow those ads in newspapers, magazines, or on TV.

brettnak 7y ago

Because they are made of human beings and live on planet Earth. A better question is why do we think companies shouldn't care about that? Why isn't it their responsibility?

pstuart 7y ago
Because making money is all that matters and any interference of that is bad? /s I'm so tired of libertarian fairy tales.
LudwigNagasena 7y ago
Because a system where companies maximize profits and government punishes unethical behavior according to the rule of law is a cornerstone of liberal society that many highly respected thinkers advocated for since the start of the Age of Enlightenment.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Because a system where companies maximize profits and government punishes unethical behavior according to the rule of law is a cornerstone of liberal society that many highly respected thinkers advocated for since the start of the Age of Enlightenment. It's frankly unworkable to outsource morality and ethics to the government, even if you allow extreme surveillance and control. The law is there to catch serious cases where personal ethics and morality have failed. Yeah, that contradicts the DRY principle [1], but life isn't a software system. Also, IIRC, the idea that the "system" is one were "companies [merely] maximize profits" within legal limits set by the government is a rather recent but false view [2]. The Age of Enlightenment didn't start in the 1970s. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself [2] This seems to give a decent summary: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stout_Corporate-Issues.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Stout_C...
megaman821 7y ago
Why is this a standard being uniquely applied to Facebook? There are ads for x-ray glasses in magazines. The are commercials for security products with many lies running on all the cable news networks. I tend the think the source of the lie is the thing that should be attacked. Who has the most responsibility here: the advertiser for lying, the network for showing the lie, the ISP for delivering the content with a lie, the laptop for displaying the lie?
- threeseed 7y ago
  Simple answer. With magazines, television etc you are targeting everyone. So if you run an ad that said "Vote for me because I will build a border wall" then you will attract 30% of the population and alienate the other 70%. With Facebook you can just target that 30% whilst guaranteeing the 70% won't be affected since they won't see the ads. That is the feature that is unique to Facebook that is causing all of the problems.
  - k1e 7y ago
    What problems is it causing? How does not affecting other "70%" change things?
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      Let's say you have two groups of people. One group is pro-skub, the other group is anti-skub. If you run an ad in the newspaper that says 'pro-skub people want to literally kill all anti-skubs', that is broadcasted to everyone. People outside of the target group can independently fact check it and/or apply pressure to the paper itself to remove an obviously fake and inflammatory ad. Now let's say you run that same ad on Bookface. You target specifically the anti-skub people, and especially those that are already predisposed against those that are pro-skub. Even if your ad is obviously fake, you're contributing to the radicalization of a group which increases divisiveness. This becomes much harder to independently fact check because when you search that ad on Dooble you find results which seem to reinforce that ads message because all of these algorithms are optimizing for engagement.

baddox 7y ago

No, Facebook should not allow someone to run an ad promoting genocide. They should not wait for the issue to go to court.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
Personally I don’t think they would run an ad for genocide. This is pretty easy to decide. But there are plenty of other areas where it’s much harder to determine if an ad is ok without being too political.

pjc50 7y ago

Laws are very hard to enforce internationally and against unknown persons. Facebook ads are opaque. If they wanted to disclaim responsibility, they should start with an impressum: a click to show who the person is in your country who can be prosecuted for misleading ads.

reaperducer 7y ago

If someone advertises something illegal or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who posted the ad right? In newpapers, billboards etc. No. In newspapers and billboards there are human beings involved who have sense enough to make sure things like this don't happen (thought there are cases where bosses will override common sense). For Google and Facebook, everything is automated so there is zero accountability by design. And when something goes wrong, SV companies point fingers at algorithms and put out pithy press releases saying, "We can do better" but things only seem to get worse.

save_ferris 7y ago

> If someone advertises something illegal or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who posted the ad right? Not true, there are laws that govern what can and cannot be advertised, and how. The reason cigarette companies don't publish TV or print ads is because the government made it illegal to do so. Publishers would face legal action for running illegal ads. > Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range? They already have this authority, and they choose again and again to exercise zero discretion. The fact that we're arguing over whether or not FB should have the right to choose whether or not to run these types of ads is so absurd.

klarstrup 7y ago

>Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad is within the acceptable range? Do they currently not hold such power?

variable11 7y ago

If someone advertises for hitmen, drugs, illegal images, and other crap on Facebook, how is that Facebook's fault? Sorry the Backpage.com defense is already done with, rhe courts have ruled against your pathetic willful ignorance defense.

mch82 7y ago

Publishers are responsible & accountable to the FCC and FTC in the United States. Facebook’s entire argument, until recently, is that they aren’t a publisher. For TV “The FCC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material.” https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadcast-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/complaints-about-broadc... And the Federal Trade Commission... “When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.” https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert... The reason we hear about magical cures in spam email & telemarketing is precisely because publishers are held accountable for what they publish & don’t allow those ads in newspapers, magazines, or on TV.