6 ms·
Meta throttles 404media investigation on drug ads, continues to advertise drugs
- yuy910616 3y agoI liked this new media outlet and they put out some interesting pieces, but headlines like this are a pretty good data point to the contrary.
- stuaxo 3y agoWhy shouldn't they report on recreational drugs being advertised on these sites, when it's illegal but the sites take the ad money.
- ahahahahah 3y agoThat's not what this article is about. This article is whining about Meta banning their ads promoting the article (not even banning the article itself) that violated guidelines and then allowed the ad back on after minor changes such that it would be within guidelines and then acting like Meta is trying to censor the article.
- Humboldtsnee 3y agoWhy? This seems fine?
- pseg134 3y agoThe same author has previous written articles in favor of legalization of drugs. I guess they just don’t want Meta to make the money but rather have it stay in the local communities via mom and pop drug dealers.
- delecti 3y agoI think some drugs should be legalized (MDMA probably via prescription, LSD and shrooms maybe more broadly, Cannabis' current situation in WA state seems quite reasonable). I don't think there's a contradiction between that and thinking the example ads right at the top of the article are far over the line.
- radicaldreamer 3y agoThere are some places where most of those are either legal or effectively decriminalized... Colorado, SF Bay Area (Oakland and San Francisco), and Oregon come to mind. MDMA is an interesting one because its far along in the official legalization path as a prescription drug but it doesn't fall into the decriminalization statues typically because it is synthetic (most of them make an exception for naturally derived psychedelics -- so even something very powerful like DMT is covered). In practice, however, MDMA is widely available via the same channels as other psychedelics which are typically not the same distribution channels for much more habit forming and harm causing drugs like heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine.
- philistine 3y agoAs if being in favour of legalization meant you’re in favour of allowing advertising.
- Humboldtsnee 3y agoWhat a strawman! Drugs are a complex and nuanced topic, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be pro drugs and also wary of how Instagram is vetting their drug advertisers. Black market goods vary in quality and ethics and safety, it's absolutely reasonable to say, "ok, you advertise for these, how are you ensuring safety?"
- stuaxo 3y agoIt's not inconsistent. You can want them to be legalised, but still be for big companies having to follow the law.
- ahahahahah 3y agoIt's generally not the law that companies need to censor this form of user generated content.
- philistine 3y agoLet me blow your brain: it’s possible to want legalization, but refuse to allow advertising.
- klyrs 3y agoOne of the major arguments in favor of legalization is in direct opposition to the black market. Many people think that a well regulated supply and marketplace is strictly preferable to criminal enterprise and everything that goes along with that. It's perfectly consistent to be anti-black-market and pro-legalization. Succinctly, it's okay to want to change the law, and also favor rule of law.
- photochemsyn 3y agoPublic advertisements for prescription-only drugs should qualify as a form of disinformation/misinformation, as the reason they are prescription-only is that the involvement of a trained professional who has detailed knowledge of the patient's specific history is absolutely required to determine whether or not the drug is appropriate for that patient's condition. Even direct marketing to physicians is somewhat questionable, except for the distribution of the results of clinical trials and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the efficacy of drugs, and even these can suffer from conflict-of-interest if the research reports are being generated with funds from the pharmaceutical entity that will benefit from increased sales of those drugs. Most countries ban social media / cable television / print media etc. advertisements of prescription-only drugs for these reasons.
- dvngnt_ 3y agoas long as it can't be acquired without a prescription I don't see the problem in letting people know that potential remedies exist
- notpushkin 3y agoHave you at least skimmed the article? It is not about prescription drugs.
- photochemsyn 3y agoDrugs are drugs, as the prescription opiate circus priming of the pump demonstrated. Purdue Pharma marketing campaigns created hundreds of thousands of addicts who later turned to the illegal heroin / fentanyl market when they lost access to their prescription suppliers.
- asu_thomas 3y ago> the reason they are prescription-only is that the involvement of a trained professional who has detailed knowledge of the patient's specific history is absolutely required to determine whether or not the drug is appropriate for that patient's condition I have a bridge to sell you.
- 3y ago
- nonethewiser 3y agoThe original article never seems to substantiate that the firearm ads are for illegal sales. You can legally sell guns lots of places, including the specific ones mentioned in the article (Glocks). ~~There is no inherent problem with advertising guns for sale on Instagram.~~ (EDIT: I stand corrected. It's against TOS. I should say there is nothing inherently illegal about advertising gun sales online). That just wreaks of alarmism, especially when they use less informed language like "silencer" instead of "suppressor". If there was something about it that is actually illegal they should mention it. https://www.404media.co/instagram-ads-illegal-content-drugs-guns-hackers/ https://www.404media.co/instagram-ads-illegal-content-drugs-...
- Humboldtsnee 3y agoComplaining that they use a common term that most people know rather than a correct term misunderstands language. Like, yes, it's a magazine, but colloquially it's a clip. Pop culture has given these objects two names. It's not a mark of failure to use the term most people are familiar with.
- alexb_ 3y agoIf you are talking about guns and call a magazine a clip, even in a casual setting, you would be instantly made fun of for not knowing what you are talking about. Pop culture absolutely has not given these things two names. Calling a suppressor a "silencer" is just incorrect.
- NoraCodes 3y agoThat you dislike it when people use incorrect but clear language does not mean that it invalidates their point.
- Humboldtsnee 3y agoMy guy, I'm in a gun organization. I'm aware. But most folks call it a clip because that's what movies and videogames have called them for 40 years. "Throw me a clip!" Or picking up "clips" of ammo in FPS games. Yes, mag is becoming more common now, but clip was absolutely common.
- paxys 3y agoThis is Section 230 working as intended, for better or worse.
- stuaxo 3y agoThere are so many comments on here that totally miss the point (talking about prescription drug ads when this is about advertising illegal drugs), I have to wonder if they are all bots.
- yborg 3y ago[flagged]
- BizarroLand 3y agoThe fact that yborg's comment below got flagged and immediately downvoted to death might be some proof of their claim that there might be some astroturfing going on even here.
- ynac 3y agoI'm sure the admins are tracking the last 48-72 hours on HN and seeing evidence of your suggestion. It is a coordinated start on many sites and services. Timed for the energy build-up around the debate, the surrender, and even the Richmond song. It will take great discipline to keep communities from being leveled or downgraded over the next year.
- shkkmo 3y agoNot really, because accusations of being a shill or astroturfing are considered against the site guidelines and is generally downvoted. If you suspect a shill or astroturfing, send an email to dang so he can investigate and actually do something if it is happening.
- hedora 3y agoA friend was abusing prescription drugs, and 100% of facebook and google ads he got were for exactly those drugs, biased towards time of day when he would relapse. Also, oxycodone is still legal, and probably kills more than the illegal stuff mentioned in the article. So, while the “this is obviously illegal behavior” is a nice smoking gun, it’s nothing compared to the legal stuff they do that should be illegal.
- morkalork 3y agoYowza, that link to the ad library really does work. Filtering for Canada it took about a minute to find an ad for a telegram channel that's been active for a year, claiming to sell glocks. Is it real? A scam? A honey pot? None of what is being offered is remotely legal here. Edit: Looks pretty real. He posts vids from his customers showing successful deliveries. Appears to be operating out of Toronto? Maybe one day the cops will figure out how to use a computer and do some actual detective work.
- dchung333 3y agoI've seen some on Instagram ads that are essentially human trafficking schemes pretending to be modeling and talent agencies. It's kind of dark and depressing.
- idkyall 3y agoYeah, I've reported a few ads for drugs that have shown up on marketplace. I usually don't hear back, and actually in one case they responded saying the content was fine. Facebook ads seem to really be fairly lawless, I'm not convinced there's actually a human in the loop even after reporting. Here's an ad for a Bitcoin doubling scam, complete with "Tesler" instead of "Tesla", and including a pic of Elon Musk: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=308770845058112 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=308770845058112 Plenty of other scams are freely advertised as well: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/16/crypto-scam-advertised-on-facebook-cost-victim-her-life-savings https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/16/crypto-sc...
- iandanforth 3y ago404Media seems to be shaping up to be outrage journalism, what was once called 'yellow journalism'.
- fckgw 3y agoHow so?
- dylan604 3y agoYeah, their article on the logistics of planning a concert tour for one of the most famous performers of the time but keeping it a secret sure does smell like outrage journo to me
- mgbmtl 3y agoCan you quote an exaggeration or something sensationalist from the article? The article has details and examples of their own experience (and it's titled "my feed", not "instagram in general"), they interviewed researchers/experts on the topic, reached out to Meta for comment, waited to see what happened after doing so, etc.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 71a54xd 3y ago404 is everything I hoped it would be and more. Absolutely incredible - just signed up for a paid subscription!
- dylan604 3y agoi'm giving it more time, but I've had a tab open since it was mentioned here a couple of days ago. i've read some of their articles as time permits. keeping an eye on them for the time being to see if a trend develops that i will like
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoJust barely out of week 1 and you're already running stories about yourselves?
- Humboldtsnee 3y agoIf a New York Times investigation was moderated off of Instagram and the illegal content they reported on was kept up, it's fair play for the NYT to talk about that.
- stuaxo 3y agoYep, totally standard - bit of a weird criticism tbh.
- TimSchumann 3y agoIf it’s relevant and newsworthy, I don’t see why they wouldn’t. In the about us section they state their reporting is “exploring the ways technology is shaping–and is shaped by–our world.” I’d say this reporting falls squarely in those crosshairs.
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago404's growth hackers making waves right out of the gate. This media company was launched like a month ago and they're already taking the spotlight by doing censor-worthy or ban-worthy stuff. Take notes. This is how it's done these days. You want attention? You want to grow your anything? Start fights, call names, and make sure you get kicked out, censored. It's like the Streisand Effect or something.
- sbarre 3y agoSpeaking truth to power has always been a cornerstone of journalism, so I don't know that I would attribute this to growth hacking (although this is HN so I guess the startup distortion lens is always on). They are writing and publishing compelling investigative content, I think that's why they are getting the traction they have (plus the team has a proven track record from previous work).
- 93po 3y agoIt is rare for journalism to go against the interests of the powerful since it’s overwhelmingly owned by the powerful
- sbarre 3y agoI suspect you are relatively young? Because this concentration of ownership of news and journalism into fewer and fewer hands is a new-ish thing, at least in the last few decades. So on the timeline of journalism, it is not rare for this to happen, it's just increasingly rare in recent times. And I think a correction is coming, with for example this kind of more independent and self-funded projects.
- smegger001 3y agoIt not a new thing. Ever heard of William Randolph Hearst, and Hearst Communications? He was the Murdoch of his day fucking with politics, fake news supporting far right leaders and everything.
- 3y ago
- tempodox 3y agoCan't have the law get in the way of turning a buck.
- soniman 3y agoThe guy who said "Deplatforming Works" is now getting deplatformed. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...