4 ms·

Either 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 ago
It'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 ago
  Could 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 ago
    I'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.
    - shkkmo 6y ago
      Our economy cannot currently operate without oil. Even if we replace it for energy production, we still need oil to produce other types of products. Saying we should move towards using significantly less oil and that companies should pay for the negative externalities they cause is rational, saying oil companies should fundementally not exist is irrational. Similarly, while I find the way that cigarette companies operate to be abhorrent (specifically they way they use international law to fight packaging and health laws), people deserve the right to smoke if they choose as well as the right to be free of abusive advertising of dangerous products.
      - namibj 6y ago
        We are able to synthesize methane from electricity+air with high-enough efficiency to use it as a chemical source. Some exotic stuff like asphalt might be difficult to synthesize, but most uses should be replaceable with a methane-based synthesis. Theoretically we could start a tax that progressively dis-incentivizes crude oil and natural gas extraction, but this is going to be hard unless US, EU, and CN agree on this, because the economic advantages of operating a refinery that stamps "synthetic" on their fossil products would be massive.
- vvanders 6y ago
  Honestly? I think all political advertising shouldn't be allowed, it gives those with a disproportionate amount of capital a lever of influence that runs counter to the democratic process. If you want to push an issue you should have to organize people who believe in your cause and have them involved. There's been plenty of examples of microtargeting's influence that makes me think it has no place in the political discourse. No idea if we'll ever get there.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    How would you organize people to your cause without doing anything that would be considered 'advertising'? Unless you narrowly define advertising in a way that is easily worked around..
    - vvanders 6y ago
      Same way we can have an open discussion on this lovely site we call HN. While I'm not going to claim to know every definition of advertising, generally if money changes hands for priority over organic traffic that fits the bill pretty well for me. Doubly so if you're able to target specific categories and demographics. I think what makes microtargeting so bad in particular is that you can do things that would be negative to the broader public but narrow the scope so you have multiple sides of a campaign that doesn't let the public have a reasonable view of that campaign/issue as a whole.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    What you're calling the democratic process is simply people willing to spend capital on a cause. It's just that their capital is time (and time is money). It doesn't make them any holier, and there's nothing morally or ethically superior about having to "organize people" without spending money. Put another way, I may be able to exert my political voice using money and I am not less deserving of having my opinion heard or any less deserving of influencing others than someone whose primary input is time (in lieu of other life pursuits).
    - OpieCunningham 6y ago
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  At least Twitter is mostly public. That allows stupid stuff to be opposed, and harmful things to be reported. With Facebook, and especially Groups, people are fully immersed in their self-selected filter bubble, and admins can run their colloidal-silver-scams without interference.

ve55 6y ago

It'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 ago
Could 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 ago
  I'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.
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    Our economy cannot currently operate without oil. Even if we replace it for energy production, we still need oil to produce other types of products. Saying we should move towards using significantly less oil and that companies should pay for the negative externalities they cause is rational, saying oil companies should fundementally not exist is irrational. Similarly, while I find the way that cigarette companies operate to be abhorrent (specifically they way they use international law to fight packaging and health laws), people deserve the right to smoke if they choose as well as the right to be free of abusive advertising of dangerous products.
    - namibj 6y ago
      We are able to synthesize methane from electricity+air with high-enough efficiency to use it as a chemical source. Some exotic stuff like asphalt might be difficult to synthesize, but most uses should be replaceable with a methane-based synthesis. Theoretically we could start a tax that progressively dis-incentivizes crude oil and natural gas extraction, but this is going to be hard unless US, EU, and CN agree on this, because the economic advantages of operating a refinery that stamps "synthetic" on their fossil products would be massive.
vvanders 6y ago
Honestly? I think all political advertising shouldn't be allowed, it gives those with a disproportionate amount of capital a lever of influence that runs counter to the democratic process. If you want to push an issue you should have to organize people who believe in your cause and have them involved. There's been plenty of examples of microtargeting's influence that makes me think it has no place in the political discourse. No idea if we'll ever get there.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  How would you organize people to your cause without doing anything that would be considered 'advertising'? Unless you narrowly define advertising in a way that is easily worked around..
  - vvanders 6y ago
    Same way we can have an open discussion on this lovely site we call HN. While I'm not going to claim to know every definition of advertising, generally if money changes hands for priority over organic traffic that fits the bill pretty well for me. Doubly so if you're able to target specific categories and demographics. I think what makes microtargeting so bad in particular is that you can do things that would be negative to the broader public but narrow the scope so you have multiple sides of a campaign that doesn't let the public have a reasonable view of that campaign/issue as a whole.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  What you're calling the democratic process is simply people willing to spend capital on a cause. It's just that their capital is time (and time is money). It doesn't make them any holier, and there's nothing morally or ethically superior about having to "organize people" without spending money. Put another way, I may be able to exert my political voice using money and I am not less deserving of having my opinion heard or any less deserving of influencing others than someone whose primary input is time (in lieu of other life pursuits).
  - OpieCunningham 6y ago
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
At least Twitter is mostly public. That allows stupid stuff to be opposed, and harmful things to be reported. With Facebook, and especially Groups, people are fully immersed in their self-selected filter bubble, and admins can run their colloidal-silver-scams without interference.