2 ms·

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

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).

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).