5 ms·

What's the reason not to ban them immediately?

by sleavey 6y ago

pb7 6y ago
$$$
- sleavey 6y ago
  Really? For a few last months of revenue versus potentially stopping an election result from being bought?
  - nicolas_ 6y ago
    It's Facebook you're talking about. I'm not sure why you'd think they would make the right choice instead of chasing $.
  - interestica 6y ago
    I suspect the lead-up to an election is like the Christmas season for political advertisers. So, it's hard to look at it as "few months of revenue" when in fact it might count for the majority.
    - pb7 6y ago
      Right. It's either already decided and no money left to be had or not yet decided and the majority of the money is yet to be captured.
  - ssss11 6y ago
    Do you think they favour a fair election over $$$? Do you think there is anything they favour over $$$ at this point?
  - nl 6y ago
    The mistake here is thinking that (generally speaking) allowing questionable behavior is a "whole of Facebook" decision. Instead there is some VP in charge of "ad sales for mid-West US" who looks at their target numbers for a bonus, looks at the ~$100M+ spending planned by the campaigns in that area in the next month[1] and goes "I don't want to sell an election but it is and important free speech issue that campaigns are allowed to get their message across". Stopping that is a decision that has to be made at the top, by one person who then needs to argue against a lot of people whose financial interest is in the opposite direction. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article245569490.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/electio...
dchi 6y ago
That would significantly advantage incumbents and unfairly change the rules of the game in the 9th inning.
marcell 6y ago
It violates the principle of free speech (even if it does not violate the letter of the law in the first amendment). There is nothing inherently bad about paying $1000 (or $1M) for a political ad. For a mental image, someone paying for a political ad could be running for school board in a medium sized city. A ban on all political ads would restrict that person's ability to explain why they want to be on the school board, and would restrict that person's ability to advocate for new policies in their school district. Why do you want to impose a ban on this?
- Zak 6y ago
  Facebook is not committed to the principle of free speech in advertising, and prohibits advertisements for a great many things that are legal to advertise.
  - marcell 6y ago
    Whether or not FB has this commitment right now, they should have this commitment. A ban on political ads would go against a hypothetical commitment to the principle of free speech.
    - Zak 6y ago
      Every large advertising platform I can think of has rules about what they will accept that are narrower than what the laws that apply to them require. For example, it's generally legal in the US to advertise firearms, but most large advertising platforms refuse ads for them.
      - marcell 6y ago
        Again, I’m describing a goal. You are describing the status quo. The existence of a bad status quo doesn’t negate what the goal should be. In my view, the goal of FB should be to allow for free speech, especially in the context of politics.
        6y ago
weeboid 6y ago
Rhymes with "revenue". 2016 I made a large (for me) investment into FB certain that the revenue would appear, and it worked out quite handsomely. I can't stomach it this time.

What's the reason not to ban them immediately?

pb7 6y ago

$$$

sleavey 6y ago
Really? For a few last months of revenue versus potentially stopping an election result from being bought?
- nicolas_ 6y ago
  It's Facebook you're talking about. I'm not sure why you'd think they would make the right choice instead of chasing $.
- interestica 6y ago
  I suspect the lead-up to an election is like the Christmas season for political advertisers. So, it's hard to look at it as "few months of revenue" when in fact it might count for the majority.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Right. It's either already decided and no money left to be had or not yet decided and the majority of the money is yet to be captured.
- ssss11 6y ago
  Do you think they favour a fair election over $$$? Do you think there is anything they favour over $$$ at this point?
- nl 6y ago
  The mistake here is thinking that (generally speaking) allowing questionable behavior is a "whole of Facebook" decision. Instead there is some VP in charge of "ad sales for mid-West US" who looks at their target numbers for a bonus, looks at the ~$100M+ spending planned by the campaigns in that area in the next month[1] and goes "I don't want to sell an election but it is and important free speech issue that campaigns are allowed to get their message across". Stopping that is a decision that has to be made at the top, by one person who then needs to argue against a lot of people whose financial interest is in the opposite direction. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article245569490.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/electio...

dchi 6y ago

That would significantly advantage incumbents and unfairly change the rules of the game in the 9th inning.

marcell 6y ago

It violates the principle of free speech (even if it does not violate the letter of the law in the first amendment). There is nothing inherently bad about paying $1000 (or $1M) for a political ad. For a mental image, someone paying for a political ad could be running for school board in a medium sized city. A ban on all political ads would restrict that person's ability to explain why they want to be on the school board, and would restrict that person's ability to advocate for new policies in their school district. Why do you want to impose a ban on this?

Zak 6y ago
Facebook is not committed to the principle of free speech in advertising, and prohibits advertisements for a great many things that are legal to advertise.
- marcell 6y ago
  Whether or not FB has this commitment right now, they should have this commitment. A ban on political ads would go against a hypothetical commitment to the principle of free speech.
  - Zak 6y ago
    Every large advertising platform I can think of has rules about what they will accept that are narrower than what the laws that apply to them require. For example, it's generally legal in the US to advertise firearms, but most large advertising platforms refuse ads for them.
    - marcell 6y ago
      Again, I’m describing a goal. You are describing the status quo. The existence of a bad status quo doesn’t negate what the goal should be. In my view, the goal of FB should be to allow for free speech, especially in the context of politics.
      - 6y ago

weeboid 6y ago

Rhymes with "revenue". 2016 I made a large (for me) investment into FB certain that the revenue would appear, and it worked out quite handsomely. I can't stomach it this time.