25 ms·
Verizon suspends advertising on Facebook, joins growing boycott
- IThoughtYouGNU 6y agoDude when Verizon boycotts you you know you fucked up
- anoncareer0212 6y agoThe 'brand safety' shoe was about to drop for a couple years, and by definition it requires Facebook start deciding what's bad and what's good. I hope Zuck has a plan, it's uncharacteristic for him to commit this hard to an approach and not have a way out...
- abacadaba 6y agoIf facebook gives in to moderation based on silicon valley politics they're done for.
- nawgszy 6y agoSo in this case, the enemy of my enemy is or is not my friend?
- GauntletWizard 6y ago"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries#cite_ref-resort_to_violence_24-0 https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_...
- ycombonator 6y agoIf Hillary would have won none of this would have been a problem.
- lucasmullens 6y agoWhat would Hillary have done that would have avoided this situation? This is a dispute between two private companies, and there's not a clear piece of legislation that would prevent this, especially one that would be approved by Congress.
- luckydata 6y agoCheck again what started this dispute and you’ll have your answer.
- hedora 6y agoNo idea what the flagged comment said, but presumably she would have set up her own email server and deleted her Facebook account. :-)
- jessaustin 6y agoNuclear war with Russia would have ended the human race already?
- kingaillas 6y agoMore like "politics makes strange bedfellows", Charles Dudley Warner [0] [0] - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Dudley_Warner https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Dudley_Warner
- forbiddenvoid 6y agoSounds like Verizon's Facebook advertising spend is losing value because of COVID-19, so they're using this a way to redirect focus away from the negative impact on their business. All of the companies doing this right now are 'pausing spend' rather than redirecting. They're reducing their marketing budgets and pointing the finger at Facebook so no one looks too closely at the implications of their reduced ad spend.
- thefounder 6y agoHow do you know all that?
- vvanders 6y agoEither way, if it puts pressure on FB to structure their business in a way that doesn't push hate at a micro targeted level isn't that a good thing?
- ve55 6y agoIt's hard to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound snarky, but I mean it sincerely: Would you rather they become more like Twitter instead? Promoting virality is promoting outrage content, full-stop.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoCould we prefer they no longer exist? Examples: there’s nothing an oil company can turn into that continues to sell oil in a non harmful manner. Altria tried to adopt vaping (still harmful) to move away from cigarettes (very harmful!). Some businesses and their products should simply not exist due to the harm they cause. I apologize upfront if this doesn’t seem genuine and instead, unnecessarily controversial.
- aarpmcgee 6y agoI'd like to hear the arguments behind the downvotes you're getting. To me, it seems that there are some things that, for the sake of the continued existence of our species (and countless others) on this planet, must simply be seen with clarity.
- 0xDEADBEF 6y agoSigh, more politics intermingled with doing business. Just provide a service and leave it be.
- birdyrooster 6y agoCan you give me an example of something businesses do which isn’t political?
- 0xDEADBEF 6y agoSelling lemonade, running a bike shop, etc.
- metachor 6y agoYou seem to be confusing small businesses with corporations, as if they have the same economic and power imperatives.
- 0xDEADBEF 6y ago> You seem to be confusing small businesses with corporations No, not at all. The question was: > Can you give me an example of something businesses do which isn’t political? And thus I gave 2 examples. A small business can also incorporate if they wish. And yes, the bigger a business gets, the hairy things get politically if they want to stay neutral or simply true to their business model, but they are not mutually exclusive.
- askafriend 6y agoYou've never actually opened and ran a bike shop have you? Even just the zoning, taxes and permitting process alone will be political. I'm loving seeing all these responses. They're hilarious.
- iamstupidsimple 6y agoThere's no difference except size. Facebook and Google were small businesses once.
- kypro 6y agoWe need to get corporate interests as far away from political speech as possible. It's honestly a disgrace these companies are trying to boycott Facebook for not wanting to censor our speech. We all know the phase "hate speech" is interchangeable with anything that's not deemed advertiser friendly to these corporations. You think these companies want to advertise against a status update critical of the BLM movement? Of course not. If Facebook buckles to these demands they'll be boycotting Facebook to censor posts critical of political movements they don't like next. We need to stop acting as if billion dollar corporations have our best interests at heart.
- scarface74 6y agoCorporations want their customers to buy their stuff. It helps when you don’t offend your customers. Are you proposing that the government force companies not to discriminate where they advertise?
- kypro 6y agoOf course not. They can advertise where they want. Were they fairer in its implementation I'd say YouTube's "not advertisement" friendly model is a good way to handle these problems. My issue here is their intention is to boycott Facebook into censoring my speech. If they simply suspended advertising then fine, but they're claiming they're doing it as part of a wider protest to force companies to regulate what I can say online. I don't have a perfect answer, but I do believe more regulation is needed. These "platforms" are the modern equivalent to 20th century communication technologies like the telephone. We should be extremely careful about allowing a service as important as Facebook the legal right to curate our speech so that we're advertiser friendly.
- scarface74 6y agoNo the Internet is the communication technology. Not Facebook. You are free to create a blog and say whatever you like. If it’s something worthwhile, you should be able to get a following. There were people getting their messages out through grass roots campaigns way before the internet was a thing.
- narag 6y agoI'm not American, I'm not in Facebook either. I've read TFA and still don't have a clue what is Facebook criticized for. What's that hate speech and who's doing it?
- Consultant32452 6y agoThe triggering event, as I understand it, is they did not censor the President of the United States who said something to the effect of riots lead to death. There's two ways to interpret this. One way is that eventually people will get hurt in some way if riots continue. Another way to interpret it was as a death threat to protesters. FB's position was that even if it was a threat, that the protesters needed to know that the President was going to send in the military to come kill them. So they did not censor or otherwise flag the post. This is perceived as FB promoting violence.
- hedora 6y agoTrump did more than you suggest. He used well understood language (“when the looting starts the shooting starts” is a famous quote from a white supremacist) to encourage his supporters to murder/lynch blacks. His campaign eventually started using Nazi imagery suggesting various opposition groups and protestors should be sent to concentration camps. Facebook pulled the ad. Around the same time, he used Twitter to (successfully, apparently) incite lynchings. Pulling a few Trump campaign ads was too little too late, and now people are boycotting Facebook. Here is a link to a story about the ad. Don’t take my word for it: https://boingboing.net/2020/06/18/trump-ad-uses-nazi-symbol-to-a.html https://boingboing.net/2020/06/18/trump-ad-uses-nazi-symbol-...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Consultant32452 6y agoI think you're giving Trump too much credit. I find it difficult to believe Trump is highly educated about anything, much less esoteric quotes and symbols used by dead racist people.
- throwawaysea 6y agoKeep politics out of business. Stop caving into activist pressure (whether internal or external) and online outrage. That isn't representative of what customers care about or want. Companies entering cultural/ideological wars (like Verizon) are doing so based on the voices of a small vocal minority of people. By adopting such stances, these companies are doing the silent majority of their customers a huge disservice and alienating them. As an example, I don't think Facebook is wrong to operate neutrally (unlike Twitter), and I am not supportive of this campaign to get advertisers off Facebook. However, my opinion on the matter is invisible to Verizon. Verizon doesn't have any idea that numerous customers might be okay with them advertising on Facebook, because most customers are not willing to sacrifice their life to engage in activism. My opinion still should matter to Verizon. They should poll a large and diverse sample of their customers before committing to political actions like this. Put another way, companies like Verizon are likely being misled by sophisticated organization, campaigning, and manufactured outrage. In the absence of knowing their entire customer base intimately, they should stay out of political issues, operate neutrally, and just do what maximizes their own value. Leave the rest to the public theater of politics (meaning elections, legislation, etc.).
- thephyber 6y ago> These companies are basically being gamed by sophisticated organization, campaigning, and manufactured outrage. I'm sorry I lost the thread. Is "these companies" the boycotting companies or the boycotted? > Stop caving into activist pressure and online outrage. Is this post not "online outrage"?
- throwawaysea 6y agoI edited my post, and hopefully it reads more clearly now.
- thephyber 6y agoFYI, I only posted because the ambiguity was ironic.
- 6y ago
- mchusma 6y agoI am very nervous that the main US political outcomes of 2020 will be a reduction in free speech and expansion of executive powers.
- partiallypro 6y agoThat happens basically every election. We've been slipping in free speech freedoms in various indexes for 20 years now, and that has been regardless of who is in office.
- hedora 6y agoIn other news, the US has been downgraded to “flawed democracy” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y agoBy The Economist, so it means nothing.
- fsflover 6y agoWhat's wrong with The Economist? Whom do you trust?
- yobi-ponti 6y agoSeems like a lot of people like that idea, what a shame
- cwhiz 6y agoWe want Facebook to censor speech on Facebook! But oh not all speech just some speech that we don’t like. Only we are allowed to define the type of speech we don’t like. And we reserve the right to change at any time. So, please just censor speech that we don’t like. On this day. At this hour. At this minute. And next minute we’ll tell you what to censor next.
- whatever1 6y agoSpeech is not free even in real life. If I start shouting and printing on posters that cwhiz is a neo-Nazi on a payroll, then you have the right to sue me. Speech is defacto constrained by the law, and by social contracts (e.g. you will not go to your colleague to tell them that they are ugly). Now if you ask me how should social media handle it? I think that it should not be their choice, because they are not accountable (aka we don’t get to vote for FB’s leadership). The elected gov. has to come up with a framework that allows for punitive action against language that is verifyiably wrong and can cause harm to other people. If this framework is wrong, we can vote for a different gov with a better platform.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dustingetz 6y agothe whole point of a democracy is to give the people what the want
- beart 6y agoThat is definitely not the "whole point" of democracy.
- flyinglizard 6y agoNot exactly. That’s why democracy doesn’t promote lynchings for example, and why US sets term limits on its presidents even if they are popular.
- flatline 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- topkai22 6y agoWhile I do believe the Facebook boycott is real, Verizon has a fairly large advertising/media business of their own and so is competitor to Facebook. Not mentioning this as part of reporting isn't great journalism.
- SandersAK 6y agoMany of the comments in this thread do not understand the concept of free speech from a legal perspective. Free speech does not mean that you have the right to say or distribute whatever you want on whatever platform, owned by a private corporation you want. on a side note - these are super dog whistle comments, and I'm surprised the mods are ok with them.
- rsynnott 6y agoAnd it CERTAINLY doesn’t mean that you as an advertiser are required to pay the company distributing said speech to show your ads.
- ciarannolan 6y ago>Free speech does not mean that you have the right to say or distribute whatever you want on whatever platform, owned by a private corporation you want. Most people understand this. It doesn't need to keep being repeated in every thread. Facebook isn't bobsmessageboard.com. The debate is over whether it is a de facto public communications utility and should be regulated as such, or if it is private company that is free to do whatever it wants on it's platform.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoI’m quite free market... but in this case Google with its infinite resources tried to take just a piece of the Facebook pie and failed miserably. If Google can’t compete with them - then SocialSite5000 startup has no shot in hell. Facebook is unfortunately a monopoly. We can wait it out, but they are in a position to keep their advantage for generations so I don’t think that’s entirely reasonable. If there are a monopoly, then they should be held to the ideals of common carrier and free speech and platform vs publisher, etc.
- hedora 6y agoInciting violence is illegal speech. Facebook is giving the president a platform for his illegal speech. The courts (and the senate) are not going to enforce the law, so as a society we are duty bound to take whatever legal actions we can to correct the situation.
- partiallypro 6y agoI really don't understand this protest at all. If they really care about this, why aren't they pulling from YouTube and Google? Which has very very bad comment sections? I'm not for big corporations calling for people to police speech. Patagonia boycotted Facebook, but they have 13 factories in China...a country with concentration camps for Muslims and political prisoners. A lot of corporate good will falls on deaf ears for me, especially when they have been so silent on issues in China/Hong Kong/Taiwan. Money talks, if this weren't a profitable thing to do, they wouldn't do it.
- bilbo0s 6y agoI don't have a facebook, so I don't know how they are advertising these days? But I know that on YouTube your ads won't show on objectionable content. Is there a similar system on facebook? Or do your ads show against all content no matter how objectionable it is? If you can't control where your ads are shown, then this boycott doesn't really surprise me. By way of a contrived example, suppose there is content about a person who was murdered and dismembered on facebook. Well if I'm Ginsu, I'm not sure I want a ginormous ad for my knives next to that content. I wonder if facebook makes guarantees like youtube does with regard to embarrassing situations like that.
- pedrosorio 6y agohttps://www.facebook.com/business/help/1926878614264962?id=1769156093197771 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/1926878614264962?id=1...
- pvg 6y agoChoosing how to spend your own money is hardly 'policing speech'. It sounds more like it's not that you don't understand it but you're set on framing it in a specific way. As you point out, this can lead to hearing loss.
- partiallypro 6y agoI understand what is happening, and what they want. I don't understand why they want it, other than they've done market research to show such a stance could lead to increased sales or brand marketing. I mean, this protest alone has already brought them tremendous free press/advertising. They've crunched the numbers. Also...they are calling on the company to police speech. So how can you say they are "hardly policing speech" when they are literally calling for another company to do that? They can do whatever they want with their money, but to pretend they aren't advocating the policing of speech on a platform is just nonsense.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- danans 6y agoThis sounds similar to the advertiser boycott that led to demonetization of YouTube channels that were pushing hate content. I don't know what action FB realistically can take to similarly disincentivize hate content or violence promoting though, since its primary content producers (people who post) are not paid - they are posting for their own sake - so there is nothing to demonetize. Maybe they can follow Twitter's lead and flag content with warnings, but that seems unlikely given their current stance.
- slg 6y agoFor all the people mentioning the free speech ramifications, I would like to point to the recommendations from the group leading this boycott[1]. It doesn't seem like any of this is related to free speech. They are asking for extra moderation and support. They also are asking for Facebook to stop profiting from hate speech and misinformation, but they stop short of asking for changes to any policy regarding the removal of content. What is wrong with these requests? Provide more support to people who are targets of racism, antisemitism and hate * Create a separate moderation pipeline for users who express that they have been targeted because of specific identity characteristics such as race or religion. This pipeline must include experts on various forms of identity-based hate. * Create a threshold of harm on the platform where they will put a target of hate and harassment in touch with a live Facebook employee to help them address their concerns. * Release data from their existing reporting form around identity-based hate. For example, how many reports of hate speech based on race or ethnicity did they get in 2019? How many, and what kinds of actions were taken? Stop generating ad revenue from misinformation and harmful content. * Create internal mechanisms (for every media format on every Facebook platform) that automatically remove all ads from content labeled as misinformation or hate. * Change the advertising portal on all Facebook products to tell advertisers how often their ads were shown next to content that was later removed for misinformation or hate. * Provide refunds to advertisers for those advertisements * Prove it: send out an audited transparency report specifically addressing these suggestions. Increase Safety in Private Groups on Facebook. * At the request of a member of a private group, provide at least one Facebook-affiliated moderator per group with more than 150 members. Consider more moderators for even larger groups. * Create an internal mechanism to automatically flag content in private groups associated with extremist ideologies for human review. This content and associated groups would then be reviewed by internal subject matter experts on extremism. [1] - http://stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations http://stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agoI'm very proud to live in a country that still has a strong, foundational principle of Freedom of Speech. Most of the euro countries at this point have criminalized objectionable expression, "hate speech", online. And they compel social media companies to delete it or face incredible fines. I don't consider France, Germany, or several other euro countries to be free societies.
- DeonPenny 6y agoI honestly don't understand this
- gruglife 6y agoNone of this matters unless the end users stop using FB. If not, advertisers will keep spending money on ads.
- Doba 6y agoFinally corporate companies are becoming woke in an age of bias recruiting
- jMyles 6y agoIncreasingly, I just want a completely decentralized social networking toolchain, where people can subscribe to the moderation and filtration they like, and nothing can be universally censored.
- caseyohara 6y agoBut what happens when the moderation and filtration mechanisms are inevitably corrupted?
- hedora 6y agoIf it is decentralized, it will not have or need moderation or filtration mechanisms. RSS works fine without them.
- Reelin 6y agoIf it's fully decentralized why wouldn't the user change their selected mechanisms? If all they have is voluntary subscriptions to others' feeds, in what manner can that be corrupted? If they voluntarily chose to subscribe to a centralized third party as a data source or moderator how is that different from what we currently have? (And why wouldn't they just switch?)
- jMyles 6y agoIn my vision, the tooling to perform moderation and filtration is independent from the data hose, so one can pick up and move to a different moderation regime when unsatisfied. I don't think we're ever going to have harmony with one single arbiter at the center, especially when that arbiter also has a financial interest in the overall network.
- Reelin 6y agoIt's not "completely decentralized" due to various realities, but federated and self hostable services such as Matrix, Mastodon, and PixelFed should mostly work for use with family and friends at this point.
- 6y ago
- rainyMammoth 6y agoI would boycott Facebook for other reasons than them not boycotting Trump ads. Facebook is simply a TERRIBLE company. They make us lose billions of hours and created a mental health epidemic, especially in teenagers that cannot stop comparing themselves with other's fake life on Facebook. That is a good enough reason to not want to advertise on that platform.
- allarm 6y agoAccusing Facebook in that it’s like accusing sugar companies in diabetes. Not saying the problem doesn’t exist, but maybe they just abuse Facebook? I’m spending around 10 minutes a week in my fb account, checking on friends and family, that’s mostly enough. What stops you from doing the same?
- intopieces 6y agoSome books you might benefit from reading on this topic: “Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us” “The Attention Merchants” by Tim Wu
- allarm 6y agoThanks for the recommendation!
- jessaustin 6y agoI spend zero minutes a year on FB. I still recognize that it harms those who do use it.
- allarm 6y agoIt’s just a tool. Don’t use it to harm yourself and you’ll be fine.
- kristopolous 6y agoThey own Yahoo and AOL, I'm claiming this is just in-house strategy presented in a theatrical ceremony. They also own things like HuffPost, Engadget and TechCrunch... It's no secret that Facebook has siphoned news revenue without having to actually do the hard and pricey work of journalism. Someone probably drew a chart of all of Verizon's properties and figured out that Facebook is an expensive middleman between them. I'm not a big fan of Verizon but they certainly do know how to run a business.
- Thorentis 6y ago> Private company tells other private company which speech they should be censoring Welcome to the new era of information folks. You thought private companies were too powerful before, well, guess what? You've now given them the power to control almost all forms of communication. "But, but, private companies should be able to decide who they want on their platform! What about the free market?" Wake the hell up. Read up on monopoly. And then read about the network effect. And then go and try starting your own social network that believes in freedom of speech, and convince 1 billion people to join. Then come back and tell me that the private communication industry is a free market.
- inscionent 6y agoThis is the free market. Verizon is paying Facebook. If you want a say, you should consider paying for your social network.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- scarface74 6y agoA private company is deciding that it doesn’t want its brand to be associated with certain subjects. What do you propose? A law saying that Verizon can’t choose where to spend its ad dollars? You have the right to say what you want. You don’t have the right to get a platform to publish it. People were getting their voices heard nationwide before the internet existed. During the Civil Rights Movement, leaders went to churches. We can see in the last presidential election how little Trump spent on traditional media to get his voice out there.
- apostacy 6y agoFor people defending Verizon censoring things, would you still defend Verizon so vigorously if they were bowing to Conservative groups and blocking text messages related to women's health? Because they actually did that. [1] It's really amazing how attitudes have changed. This is what the ACLU had to say about Verizon back then: > Verizon and AT&T, among others, are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress for the right to discriminate against content on the Internet it deems controversial, unsavory, or even just contrary to its own business interests. I think now, the ACLU is pressuring Congress and Verizon to crack down more on content. Of course, the idea that Facebook, a $70 billion dollar company that dwarfs any phone company in customers, should somehow be less regulated than Verizon is ludicrous. Facebook should be required to consult congress before any major policy changes. Amtrak, The US Postal Service, and Verizon are all "private" companies, but they provide such an essential service that they are heavily regulated. So should Facebook. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/verizon-reverses-course-abortion-text-messaging https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/verizon-reverses...
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoConspiracy theory: These advertiser boycotts are just making it cheaper for the Trump campaign to buy targeted political ads.
- danieltillett 6y agoDoesn’t even matter if this is intended, it is the outcome. 2020 really is the year of peak stupidity - I hope 2021 is an improvement.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago> 2020 really is the year of peak stupidity It doesn’t matter where you are, what you believe, what you do, or what you have - 2020 is peak stupidity. No one has gotten out of this better than they went in. We’re just seeing who lost the most credibility. My money on the WHO that was nearly without criticism 6 months ago.
- karmafish 6y agoConsumers should boycott Facebook too. Switch to Friendica, a distributed social network. You can invite all your friends via email.
- jariel 6y agoSo when Nike boycotts Verizon because some ugly site uses Verizon internet services ... and wants Verizon to stop allowing XYZ-speech on their network ... what then? FYI this is mostly not executive fighting - this is PR and Comms firms literally duking it out. And often they are the same comms firms. Literally interns from Edelman NY with client A giving bullets to their client to fire at company B who's PR firm is ... Edelman LA, where some douche intern has to configure a response. We should put the PR firms in their own echo chamber and let them sort it out.
- bobthechef 6y agoFiduciary responsibility. The company would not boycott Facebook unless there was at least a business incentive in place. Meaning, even if there are moral concerns, they are entirely secondary to or constrained by business concerns. The opportunism isn't in this subordination, but in the PR that tries to present this as a purely moral decision. (In any case, the concept and actual use of "hate speech" is dangerous. Laws regulating language that incites violence already exist, but "hate speech" is a phrase often unjustly used to silence people that those using the phrase don't agree with. The better response is to respond with better speech that addresses it or to ignore it.)
- root_axis 6y agoThe outrage in this thread doesn't make sense to me. This is how advertising works, it's a business decision based on business interests, Verizon doesn't care about any of this one way or another, they are simply taking a stance based on pressure from their customers. What so many of you flippantly dismiss as an outrage mob is a coalition of concerned citizens who believe Facebook is wrong for allowing dishonest political content to disseminate unchecked. It's fine to disagree, but just repeating "censorship" is not convincing, other values exist and compete with the human right to shit-post on social media.
- asdfasdf12124 6y agoI would never suggest that HN is being astro-turfed by FB, because even suggesting so will get your account banned. But, it would be neat to have a dataset of anonymized users/ip/votes to run analysis on. Again, not suggesting this forum has been influenced by sock-puppets. I wouldn't dare.
- MaximumYComb 6y agoI don't think people are asking for a FB boycott over "dishonesty", despite the way it is being framed. You literally have organisations like Sleeping Giants whose mission is to convince sponsors to dump sites that host conservative content. The current Facebook boycott is Stop Hate For Profit and is focused around hate speech (using the definition of hate speech as defined by the left). I lean quite heavily left, I'm Australian and my political compass aligns me the most with our Greens party. I follow news sources from both the left and the right and it seems very obvious that the left is asking for some double standards. Twitter is celebrated online for being woke yet no one sees anything wrong with them for allowing people to commit assault and share it on their platform [1]. I actually find the current US political climate quite worrying, one side is being completely silenced in the mainstream media. I think Democracy needs to have multiple voices. I hope people turn out and vote in the coming US elections because I suspect the Trump voters are going to come in huge numbers. The conditions of one side being silenced are very similar to 2016. ALL the polls showed a landslide for Hillary because people were too scared to admit they were going to vote Trump. [1] - https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1273092750699720709 https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1273092750699720709
- bassman9000 6y agoI can't wait for the domino effect this will create. The cancel culture reaching the ad space, bastion of a great deal of the FAANG power, will be one of the few but welcome benefits. Let's tear down these quasi-monopolies.
- homero 6y agoThey should also boycott that Facebook spreads so much misinformation like antivax and antimask to millions of people
- boraoztunc 6y agoI love hearing these news. I cut all the ties with Facebook created products. Feel good.
- shaan1 6y agoThey will come right back to Facebook in some months. No one ever remembers these things.
- bambam24 6y agoMeanwhile fb doesnt even have a favebook advertisement support phone line. Otherwise I could have call and stay on the line for 5hours.
- im3w1l 6y agoThe word boycott suggests a grassroots campaign against a company. But these are companies attacking individuals. Restricting their ability to trade, make a living and communicate. What we have on our hands is a trade blockade.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mrkramer 6y agoThey can boycott all they want small and medium-sized businesses make up majority of Facebook's advertising revenue.
- gerland 6y agoSo no company pays attention to Project Veritas exposing FB for their bias? "Anti-Defamation League" is known for running hit pieces on everyone that does not bend over to the narrative and is actually a defamation organisation. How are people buying this stuff?
- Craighead 6y agoNo, nobody pays attention to an organized effort to push propaganda. I question the health of anybody who believes in Veritas
- tlear 6y agoFacebook does. They instantly fired HR person who appeared in the most recent video.
- sillyrabbit67 6y agoOf course they did. They’re not a free speech platform and obviously they’re concerned with their advertising money
- sillyrabbit67 6y agoYou question the health of anyone who captures video of FB employees admitting bias? So mighty privileged of you.
- consultSKI 6y agoYes, there a number of reasons to reduce an ad spend, but they also made a point of a key reason: "Verizon Communications Inc said on Thursday it was pausing advertising on Facebook Inc in July, in support of a campaign that called out the social media giant for not doing enough to stop hate speech on its platforms." Short, but insightful article. Worth a read.
- neop1x 6y agoFB is also not doing enough to stop spreading false misinformation and propaganda. I have seen a anti-EU page sharing lots of untrue and simplified claims. It is censoring people so after I asked them to provide sources and proofs of these claims or attempted to explain some of them myself, they blocked me. They keep only anti-EU fan comments there. And I can't even report the page to FB as there is no "misinformation" report category. This is slowly polarizing the society and amplifying anger.