4 ms·

Not necessarily. I don't know what percentage of advertising revenue is from political advertising, but that's money that Facebook makes off of you that doesn't

Not necessarily. I don't know what percentage of advertising revenue is from political advertising, but that's money that Facebook makes off of you that doesn't come out of your pocket. Essentially any time you're shown an ad that aims to convince you to support some idea, or vote for something, or change your behavior in some way (like going vegan) instead of trying to get you go spend money, you provide value to Facebook that doesn't come out of your pocket. I suspect that this is a lot of the value of "the next billion". Why bring Facebook to people who have little disposable income? Because there are still ad buyers who will pay to reach those audiences if they have votes to give, or even just public support for some cause or another.

scatters 6y ago
Money spent on political advertising absolutely comes out of your pocket. The process is: politicians levy taxes and excise, divert the revenue to linked entities, pay Facebook out of the proceeds. Or they extract money from companies under threat of expropriation via adverse regulation and litigation. In developing countries this is blatant; in developed countries it is disguised (as lobbying, consulting fees etc.). In fairness, there is an argument that at least some political advertising is consumption by politically engaged citizenry who don't stand to gain financially from the result; witness spending on unwinnable Senate races in the latest election, for example. But in general you have to assume that political advertising comes with some expectation of return, which comes out of the everyday citizen's pocket.
- names_are_hard 6y ago
  Let me rephrase. Someone advertises to you because they expect something in return. Coca-Cola advertises to you because they expect you to buy coke. If you're too poor to buy coke, you're not useful to them. Joe's political campaign advertises to you because they want you to hate Bob, or be scared of those other guys, or whatever. This will help put Joe in charge, which is good for Joe and potentially bad for you, but it doesn't necessarily come out of your pocket. It comes out of the pockets of Joe and his friends. That might be taxpayer money, but you might not be the taxpayer paying for it. It might be private money from religious people who want gay marriage to be illegal. You pay for it with freedom, but not with money. My point wasn't that there's a free lunch here. My point was that there are other mechanisms at play, costs of advertising that don't translate directly into cost of goods and services you buy.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I can't remember ever seeing an ad on Facebook trying to convince me to go vegan or do anything public-spirited. Ever. I have however seen plenty of ads trying to get me to spend money on something/someone. And conflating the political process with the marketing process is absolutely pernicious in a democracy. The Brexit campaign used micro-targeting of individuals with knowingly dishonest ads that played to their biasses. That's not persuasion - that's just manipulation. Put simply, no one should ever be allowed to run organised campaigns based on lying and distortion for any reason. If you need to lie you don't have anything valid to say in the first place so removing you from the public discourse causes no harm to anyone.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  That is a good point - in the UK the ASA has standards that the ads must be Honest etc. But, really if we held politicians to honest, accurate and non-misleading statements ... well insert your own comment here
- names_are_hard 6y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not defending political advertising or saying it's a good thing. Just that it exists, and people will pay Facebook for the privilege of reaching your eyeballs even if they don't think they can get money out of you directly, if they think they can get something else out of you, like a vote. So even you're poor financially you are still useful to advertisers because you have something to give. I agree that most of the time that's a bad thing, although it's possible it can be used by good people trying to convince you to be good, or raise awareness of an important cause. Probably much less frequently, but evaluating good and bad views is very subjective so I'm not going there. Now perhaps all or advertising is manipulative , dishonest, and immoral. Doesn't detractfrom my point.

scatters 6y ago

Money spent on political advertising absolutely comes out of your pocket. The process is: politicians levy taxes and excise, divert the revenue to linked entities, pay Facebook out of the proceeds. Or they extract money from companies under threat of expropriation via adverse regulation and litigation. In developing countries this is blatant; in developed countries it is disguised (as lobbying, consulting fees etc.). In fairness, there is an argument that at least some political advertising is consumption by politically engaged citizenry who don't stand to gain financially from the result; witness spending on unwinnable Senate races in the latest election, for example. But in general you have to assume that political advertising comes with some expectation of return, which comes out of the everyday citizen's pocket.

names_are_hard 6y ago
Let me rephrase. Someone advertises to you because they expect something in return. Coca-Cola advertises to you because they expect you to buy coke. If you're too poor to buy coke, you're not useful to them. Joe's political campaign advertises to you because they want you to hate Bob, or be scared of those other guys, or whatever. This will help put Joe in charge, which is good for Joe and potentially bad for you, but it doesn't necessarily come out of your pocket. It comes out of the pockets of Joe and his friends. That might be taxpayer money, but you might not be the taxpayer paying for it. It might be private money from religious people who want gay marriage to be illegal. You pay for it with freedom, but not with money. My point wasn't that there's a free lunch here. My point was that there are other mechanisms at play, costs of advertising that don't translate directly into cost of goods and services you buy.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

I can't remember ever seeing an ad on Facebook trying to convince me to go vegan or do anything public-spirited. Ever. I have however seen plenty of ads trying to get me to spend money on something/someone. And conflating the political process with the marketing process is absolutely pernicious in a democracy. The Brexit campaign used micro-targeting of individuals with knowingly dishonest ads that played to their biasses. That's not persuasion - that's just manipulation. Put simply, no one should ever be allowed to run organised campaigns based on lying and distortion for any reason. If you need to lie you don't have anything valid to say in the first place so removing you from the public discourse causes no harm to anyone.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago
That is a good point - in the UK the ASA has standards that the ads must be Honest etc. But, really if we held politicians to honest, accurate and non-misleading statements ... well insert your own comment here
names_are_hard 6y ago
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not defending political advertising or saying it's a good thing. Just that it exists, and people will pay Facebook for the privilege of reaching your eyeballs even if they don't think they can get money out of you directly, if they think they can get something else out of you, like a vote. So even you're poor financially you are still useful to advertisers because you have something to give. I agree that most of the time that's a bad thing, although it's possible it can be used by good people trying to convince you to be good, or raise awareness of an important cause. Probably much less frequently, but evaluating good and bad views is very subjective so I'm not going there. Now perhaps all or advertising is manipulative , dishonest, and immoral. Doesn't detractfrom my point.