16 ms·

Someone approved those ads.

imgabe 7y ago
Does Facebook have people manually reviewing and approving each ad? That doesn't seem feasible. Regardless it's not like the ads were overt: > Posts with titles like “Our Votes Don’t Matter,” “Don’t Vote for Hillary Clinton” and “A Vote for Jill Stein is Not a Wasted Vote” were specifically aimed at black voters, the report says. It does not seem outside the realm of reason that ads advocating for or against an individual candidate, or even questioning the legitimacy of the system would be legitimate Is there a good reason a reviewer should prohibit ads advocating against a candidate? I mean a reason other than "but I like that candidate".
- Mangalor 7y ago
  Well sounds like you're trying to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns, tbh.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Well, sounds like you're trying to abolish free speech whenever it doesn't agree with your politics, tbh. Honestly, what is your preferred outcome here? What person or group of people do you want to decide which information is "valid" and what opinions people are allowed to hear? It's not an easy or trivial problem. You're practically saying any ad that during 2016 that said "Don't vote for Hillary Clinton" was an obvious Russian troll that should have been suppressed. Is that what you want?
    - themagician 7y ago
      That's not what free speech is.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        "Don't vote for $candidate", "$candidate is bad" and "$other_candidate isn't as bad as you think" are all fundamental parts of free speech. How could they be otherwise?
        themagician 7y ago
        No, they aren’t. That’s not what free speech is… at all. The right to free speech is the right to say something without the government using force or violence to silence you. That’s it. That’s all it is. That’s what it means.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        You seem to be confusing the first amendment with free speech as a concept, but that's depressingly common. Free speech is the natural right to communication; the first amendment is the US government's recognition of that right. And you're right, if Facebook is exercising their own speech rights, they don't have to relay the speech of others. But that doesn't mean that that refusal doesn't go against the concept and general principle in question.
        themagician 7y ago
        I’m not confused at all. Nothing of what was said has anything to do with free speech. No one speech is being limited. And yeah, it does mean that their refusal doesn’t go against the “concept and general principle.” It has nothing to do with the concept. No one speech is being limited. You can say whatever you want. Facebook doesn’t come into your house or try to silence you. They aren’t suing people or trying to gag them. The right to free speech has nothing to do with this weird idea of “the right to be published”. The later isn’t a thing. Is my free speech being impinged upon when Facebook bans be because I want to post pictures of boobs? Of course not. It has nothing—zero—to do with free speech. That’s not what it means.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        It depends on if you view freedom of speech as a literal "you won't be beaten up for saying things in public" or as a more general thing like "people should be able to communicate with others, and restrictions on how they communicate should be viewpoint neutral". I tend to take the more expansive view. By the narrower view, a country could have freedom of speech if it allowed dissident thoughts to be expressed in person, but never electronically or in print - since those require the use of platforms owned by others. I don't think that's the case.
- themagician 7y ago
  For new ads, yes a person does review each one. Once an ad has been approved derivative ads seem to be bulk approved.

Does Facebook have people manually reviewing and approving each ad? That doesn't seem feasible. Regardless it's not like the ads were overt: > Posts with titles like “Our Votes Don’t Matter,” “Don’t Vote for Hillary Clinton” and “A Vote for Jill Stein is Not a Wasted Vote” were specifically aimed at black voters, the report says. It does not seem outside the realm of reason that ads advocating for or against an individual candidate, or even questioning the legitimacy of the system would be legitimate Is there a good reason a reviewer should prohibit ads advocating against a candidate? I mean a reason other than "but I like that candidate".

Mangalor 7y ago
Well sounds like you're trying to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns, tbh.
- imgabe 7y ago
  Well, sounds like you're trying to abolish free speech whenever it doesn't agree with your politics, tbh. Honestly, what is your preferred outcome here? What person or group of people do you want to decide which information is "valid" and what opinions people are allowed to hear? It's not an easy or trivial problem. You're practically saying any ad that during 2016 that said "Don't vote for Hillary Clinton" was an obvious Russian troll that should have been suppressed. Is that what you want?
  - themagician 7y ago
    That's not what free speech is.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      "Don't vote for $candidate", "$candidate is bad" and "$other_candidate isn't as bad as you think" are all fundamental parts of free speech. How could they be otherwise?
      - themagician 7y ago
        No, they aren’t. That’s not what free speech is… at all. The right to free speech is the right to say something without the government using force or violence to silence you. That’s it. That’s all it is. That’s what it means.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        You seem to be confusing the first amendment with free speech as a concept, but that's depressingly common. Free speech is the natural right to communication; the first amendment is the US government's recognition of that right. And you're right, if Facebook is exercising their own speech rights, they don't have to relay the speech of others. But that doesn't mean that that refusal doesn't go against the concept and general principle in question.
        themagician 7y ago
        I’m not confused at all. Nothing of what was said has anything to do with free speech. No one speech is being limited. And yeah, it does mean that their refusal doesn’t go against the “concept and general principle.” It has nothing to do with the concept. No one speech is being limited. You can say whatever you want. Facebook doesn’t come into your house or try to silence you. They aren’t suing people or trying to gag them. The right to free speech has nothing to do with this weird idea of “the right to be published”. The later isn’t a thing. Is my free speech being impinged upon when Facebook bans be because I want to post pictures of boobs? Of course not. It has nothing—zero—to do with free speech. That’s not what it means.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        It depends on if you view freedom of speech as a literal "you won't be beaten up for saying things in public" or as a more general thing like "people should be able to communicate with others, and restrictions on how they communicate should be viewpoint neutral". I tend to take the more expansive view. By the narrower view, a country could have freedom of speech if it allowed dissident thoughts to be expressed in person, but never electronically or in print - since those require the use of platforms owned by others. I don't think that's the case.
themagician 7y ago
For new ads, yes a person does review each one. Once an ad has been approved derivative ads seem to be bulk approved.