4 ms·

Interesting, either there are 2 camps on HN, or a nuance I don't understand. In one discussion, HN readers are upset if Facebook is made to filter misleading a

by Tempest1981 7y ago

Interesting, either there are 2 camps on HN, or a nuance I don't understand. In one discussion, HN readers are upset if Facebook is made to filter misleading ads. "Let the market be free". And the slippery-slope argument is often used. In others, HN readers want government to crack down on false/shady advertising. Or the negative externalities caused by the gig economy (Uber/Airbnb). Can someone explain the difference. I don't think it's solely based on govt vs private industry doing the control.

grzm 7y ago
> Either there are 2 camps on HN HN commenters come from all over the world and have various backgrounds and viewpoints. Do you find that commenters always echo your viewpoints? Likely not, which should be proof right there that there are at least two camps. Trying to categorize such a large and varied group of people into a small number groups is likely going to be problematic, as is trying to simplify the positions of the commenters you read.
- Tempest1981 7y ago
  I guess it's that some discussions lean strongly one way, while others lean strongly the opposite way. Sometimes there is a debate. Here, so far, nobody seems to be siding with Booking.com. Small sample size perhaps. Unlikely to be herd-mentality.
jdietrich 7y ago
>Can someone explain the difference. I don't think it's solely based on govt vs private industry doing the control. It's pretty much just that, particularly when it comes to political advertising. Regulatory bodies operate with the full oversight of government and the courts; if they make poor decisions, they can be held accountable. Facebook are already frighteningly powerful and deputising them to be arbiters of truth only makes them more powerful. Facebook should absolutely have mechanisms in place to facilitate swift and effective intervention by regulatory agencies, but they shouldn't be acting as a regulatory agency themselves.
m11a 7y ago
There's a difference between the two. I support both. Here's my thoughts: 1) In the former case, the question is: "Who decides what ads can and cannot be shown?" Is it Facebook? No, people don't trust Facebook to have any clue about neutrality. Is it government? Of course not. Is it "an independent agency"? How do you determine 'independent'? There is no appropriate regulator for what is and is not a fair ad. It's easy to block ads that contain hate speech. It's harder to regulate many types of "misleading". 2) Ads are a form of free speech and outreach to people. You can view advertisements as not even being connected to the service offering the placement. From Facebook/Google ads to billboards and TV, the point is to communicate a message. It isn't really for the host to decide what messages one can show to a very large audience, or to decide on censorship (goes back to point 1), beyond the obvious denial of ads with hate speech, inciting violence, etc. The point is not the free speech of the advertisement provider. It's the free speech of the advertisers, and their freedom to get their message to people (irrelevant of popularity of the message). 3) The tactics used by Booking.com is fundamentally different. It's a company using deceptive practices to increase its own sales. There are no two parties here, nor is it an open market. It's the same company lying in its product to encourage conversions by deception. There is no advantage to free speech by allowing this to happen. ------- I do not support complete market freedom, although I support the two things you mentioned, and I think it may be true for many (most?) people. Companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves in many sectors. Governments must always involve themselves to ensure fairness, real competitive behaviour and the protection of rights. Furthermore, most people are incapable of dealing with things like deceptive practices themselves. And that's where governments have to step in. Unfortunately, although it would be an ideal world where people can make their own choices and everything is a free market, most people aren't able to live in such a world and would be exploited dry.
- Tempest1981 7y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate the detail. This is still muddy to me: - Booking is a company using deceptive practices to increase its own sales - Deceptive political ads, even outright lies, are free speech (because there is no measurable "sale"? Surely there is a benefit, likely larger the more they mislead.)
eitland 7y ago
I think you are missing a nuance: Very many agree that Facebook cannot be trusted. They would ruin a good number of peoples lives a day given that 1) they could get away with it 2) they would earn more money that way. Around here (Europe) however we already have kind-of-working regulations for ads and it would be nice to adapt those to work for booking.com as well. Edit: removed "happily" in "happily ruin a good number of peoples lives" as I guess they'd rather prefer not to if it didn't cost them money ;-)

grzm 7y ago

> Either there are 2 camps on HN HN commenters come from all over the world and have various backgrounds and viewpoints. Do you find that commenters always echo your viewpoints? Likely not, which should be proof right there that there are at least two camps. Trying to categorize such a large and varied group of people into a small number groups is likely going to be problematic, as is trying to simplify the positions of the commenters you read.

Tempest1981 7y ago
I guess it's that some discussions lean strongly one way, while others lean strongly the opposite way. Sometimes there is a debate. Here, so far, nobody seems to be siding with Booking.com. Small sample size perhaps. Unlikely to be herd-mentality.

jdietrich 7y ago

>Can someone explain the difference. I don't think it's solely based on govt vs private industry doing the control. It's pretty much just that, particularly when it comes to political advertising. Regulatory bodies operate with the full oversight of government and the courts; if they make poor decisions, they can be held accountable. Facebook are already frighteningly powerful and deputising them to be arbiters of truth only makes them more powerful. Facebook should absolutely have mechanisms in place to facilitate swift and effective intervention by regulatory agencies, but they shouldn't be acting as a regulatory agency themselves.

m11a 7y ago

There's a difference between the two. I support both. Here's my thoughts: 1) In the former case, the question is: "Who decides what ads can and cannot be shown?" Is it Facebook? No, people don't trust Facebook to have any clue about neutrality. Is it government? Of course not. Is it "an independent agency"? How do you determine 'independent'? There is no appropriate regulator for what is and is not a fair ad. It's easy to block ads that contain hate speech. It's harder to regulate many types of "misleading". 2) Ads are a form of free speech and outreach to people. You can view advertisements as not even being connected to the service offering the placement. From Facebook/Google ads to billboards and TV, the point is to communicate a message. It isn't really for the host to decide what messages one can show to a very large audience, or to decide on censorship (goes back to point 1), beyond the obvious denial of ads with hate speech, inciting violence, etc. The point is not the free speech of the advertisement provider. It's the free speech of the advertisers, and their freedom to get their message to people (irrelevant of popularity of the message). 3) The tactics used by Booking.com is fundamentally different. It's a company using deceptive practices to increase its own sales. There are no two parties here, nor is it an open market. It's the same company lying in its product to encourage conversions by deception. There is no advantage to free speech by allowing this to happen. ------- I do not support complete market freedom, although I support the two things you mentioned, and I think it may be true for many (most?) people. Companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves in many sectors. Governments must always involve themselves to ensure fairness, real competitive behaviour and the protection of rights. Furthermore, most people are incapable of dealing with things like deceptive practices themselves. And that's where governments have to step in. Unfortunately, although it would be an ideal world where people can make their own choices and everything is a free market, most people aren't able to live in such a world and would be exploited dry.

Tempest1981 7y ago
Thanks, I appreciate the detail. This is still muddy to me: - Booking is a company using deceptive practices to increase its own sales - Deceptive political ads, even outright lies, are free speech (because there is no measurable "sale"? Surely there is a benefit, likely larger the more they mislead.)

eitland 7y ago

I think you are missing a nuance: Very many agree that Facebook cannot be trusted. They would ruin a good number of peoples lives a day given that 1) they could get away with it 2) they would earn more money that way. Around here (Europe) however we already have kind-of-working regulations for ads and it would be nice to adapt those to work for booking.com as well. Edit: removed "happily" in "happily ruin a good number of peoples lives" as I guess they'd rather prefer not to if it didn't cost them money ;-)