5 ms·

Operation Mockingbird. COINTELPRO. Edward Bernays. Historically, the United States has always had actors within traditional media. It is literally impossible t

Operation Mockingbird. COINTELPRO. Edward Bernays. Historically, the United States has always had actors within traditional media. It is literally impossible to block out domestically state-controlled outlets. The article seems to focus on foreign state actors, but shouldn't their policies block all political ads at all? I feel like Facebook should just get out of that space entirely if the want to appear entirely safe/neutral (or as much is possible).

jokoon 6y ago
impossible, sure, but it will make things much harder for them, which is a big win
- Dahoon 6y ago
  Most state-run and controlled media are much more free than pretty much all mainstream media in the US (see BBC). This is FB saying corporations are more trustworthy than state-backed free media which is laughable (see FOX and friends). This is like adding DRM to computer games. The only one hurt are those who shouldn't be.
  - jokoon 6y ago
    The goal is mainly foreign state controlled media, who try to have an audience in the US, or maybe in other countries where facebook has activity. The typical target would be russia today, for example.
fossuser 6y ago
In particular the narrow targeting of the political ads seems really problematic. In Steven Levy's book [0] he goes into detail about this, the Trump campaign would show ads that specifically appeal to certain users while avoiding showing them ads that would turn them off. If you were in a targeted group known to be anti-immigrant then you'd get the anti-immigrant ad, if you were in a group that was pro-immigrant you might get the tax-cut ad, if you were someone that would never vote for Trump then you'd get anti-hillary ads, etc. This isn't at all neutral. FB's newsfeed also being algorithmically ordered for engagement (or really any way that's not chronological) is also not neutral. I'm partial to the argument that FB can't be arbiters of what's true and what's not, that people should hear the political speech as long as it's truly coming from those politicians - but this breaks down when FB allows people to narrowly target the message while also manipulating the general feed. People are only hearing subsets of political speech precisely targeted to manipulate them. It's not informative, it's leveraging confirmation bias and hiding contradictory information. I generally agree with the point that they're better being neutral, but then they should be neutral and not algorithmically rank for individual user engagement or allow this kind of targeting on political ads. Otherwise they're making editorial decisions as a publisher and should be held to that higher standard. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Inside-Story-Steven-Levy/dp/0735213151 https://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Inside-Story-Steven-Levy/dp/...
- grandmczeb 6y ago
  > If you were in a targeted group known to be anti-immigrant then you'd get the anti-immigrant ad, if you were in a group that was pro-immigrant you might get the tax-cut ad, if you were someone that would never vote for Trump then you'd get anti-hillary ads, etc. That doesn't seem that different than e.g. tailoring a speech to emphasize whatever polices are important to the city a candidate is speaking in. I could imagine it being a problem if you're presenting completely different policies to different people (e.g. pro-gun to rural, anti-gun to urban) but all political Facebook ads are public and archived so I imagine that would get found out pretty quickly.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I think there’s a difference in kind when it’s targeted this precisely, repeatedly, and at scale. Most people aren’t going to see a candidate speak in their city, and even if they do - the targeting can’t be as precise. On national TV they’ll see a more general message. Most people are on Facebook though and vulnerable to these targeted ads. Even in their city, I think a tailored message is different than an ad tested for engagement in its ability to manipulate effectively (particularly when the candidate also lies, it’s easier to hide lies when you’re selecting people already motivated to believe them, and only showing the lies directly to those people).
Alex3917 6y ago
In the US any media outlet that sends people to the white house press briefings is state controlled, so basically all of them. There is no mainstream media that isn't state controlled.
- nojito 6y ago
  How is sharing what the White House said being state controlled? There’s two different kinds of reporting....news and investigative.

jokoon 6y ago

impossible, sure, but it will make things much harder for them, which is a big win

Dahoon 6y ago
Most state-run and controlled media are much more free than pretty much all mainstream media in the US (see BBC). This is FB saying corporations are more trustworthy than state-backed free media which is laughable (see FOX and friends). This is like adding DRM to computer games. The only one hurt are those who shouldn't be.
- jokoon 6y ago
  The goal is mainly foreign state controlled media, who try to have an audience in the US, or maybe in other countries where facebook has activity. The typical target would be russia today, for example.

fossuser 6y ago

In particular the narrow targeting of the political ads seems really problematic. In Steven Levy's book [0] he goes into detail about this, the Trump campaign would show ads that specifically appeal to certain users while avoiding showing them ads that would turn them off. If you were in a targeted group known to be anti-immigrant then you'd get the anti-immigrant ad, if you were in a group that was pro-immigrant you might get the tax-cut ad, if you were someone that would never vote for Trump then you'd get anti-hillary ads, etc. This isn't at all neutral. FB's newsfeed also being algorithmically ordered for engagement (or really any way that's not chronological) is also not neutral. I'm partial to the argument that FB can't be arbiters of what's true and what's not, that people should hear the political speech as long as it's truly coming from those politicians - but this breaks down when FB allows people to narrowly target the message while also manipulating the general feed. People are only hearing subsets of political speech precisely targeted to manipulate them. It's not informative, it's leveraging confirmation bias and hiding contradictory information. I generally agree with the point that they're better being neutral, but then they should be neutral and not algorithmically rank for individual user engagement or allow this kind of targeting on political ads. Otherwise they're making editorial decisions as a publisher and should be held to that higher standard. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Inside-Story-Steven-Levy/dp/0735213151 https://www.amazon.com/Facebook-Inside-Story-Steven-Levy/dp/...

grandmczeb 6y ago
> If you were in a targeted group known to be anti-immigrant then you'd get the anti-immigrant ad, if you were in a group that was pro-immigrant you might get the tax-cut ad, if you were someone that would never vote for Trump then you'd get anti-hillary ads, etc. That doesn't seem that different than e.g. tailoring a speech to emphasize whatever polices are important to the city a candidate is speaking in. I could imagine it being a problem if you're presenting completely different policies to different people (e.g. pro-gun to rural, anti-gun to urban) but all political Facebook ads are public and archived so I imagine that would get found out pretty quickly.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think there’s a difference in kind when it’s targeted this precisely, repeatedly, and at scale. Most people aren’t going to see a candidate speak in their city, and even if they do - the targeting can’t be as precise. On national TV they’ll see a more general message. Most people are on Facebook though and vulnerable to these targeted ads. Even in their city, I think a tailored message is different than an ad tested for engagement in its ability to manipulate effectively (particularly when the candidate also lies, it’s easier to hide lies when you’re selecting people already motivated to believe them, and only showing the lies directly to those people).

Alex3917 6y ago

In the US any media outlet that sends people to the white house press briefings is state controlled, so basically all of them. There is no mainstream media that isn't state controlled.

nojito 6y ago
How is sharing what the White House said being state controlled? There’s two different kinds of reporting....news and investigative.