3 ms·

> the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like... That's hardly the worst case scenario when there are coun

> the way i see it, the worst case scenario is you get an Ad for something you might actually like... That's hardly the worst case scenario when there are countless stories like "Facebook Allowed Advertisers to Target Users Interested in “White Genocide” — Even in Wake of Pittsburgh Massacre"[1]. There's also the time Facebook's targeted ads were used to facilitate genocide in Myanmar[2][3]. [1] https://theintercept.com/2018/11/02/facebook-ads-white-supremacy-pittsburgh-shooting/ https://theintercept.com/2018/11/02/facebook-ads-white-supre... [2] https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/rohingya-facebook-hate-speech/ https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/r... [3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

charcircuit 3y ago
>when there are countless stories like "Facebook Allowed Advertisers to Target Users Interested in “White Genocide” What's wrong with that? The more interests available the better ads can be targetted. >There's also the time Facebook's targeted ads were used to facilitate genocide in Myanmar The article doesn't mention ads were used. It just sounds like Facebook was connecting people based off a common interested people shared.
- Timon3 3y ago
  Generally speaking it's never a good idea to stoke the fire of unfounded fears in people. Doing so directly leads to stochastic terrorism and other horrible things. There are more important things in this world than money. Surely we can all agree that "better ad targeting" isn't worth human lives?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]