3 ms·

What would the liability even be in this case? We don't expect anyone that shows ads to comprehensively screen those ads for non-obvious lies (such as in this c

What would the liability even be in this case? We don't expect anyone that shows ads to comprehensively screen those ads for non-obvious lies (such as in this case, "I have the rights to use the likeness of Tom Hanks for this ad").

richbell 3y ago
I think it's reasonable for platforms to be held to a basic standard of due diligence, especially with repeat offenders. YouTube has been promoting the exact same financial scam (Tessler AI investor created by Elon Musk) for years. The fraudsters haven't even bothered to change the video — there is ignorance, and then there is negligence. If platforms aren't liable for their advertisements in some respect, there's a direct financial incentive for them to look the other way.
- klabb3 3y ago
  Something something ads are free speech!!
Barrin92 3y ago
we probably should given that Facebook, unlike with user content, takes a direct cut of a transaction. Seems to me like the incentives are completely out of whack if Facebook can profit from illegal content on their platform. Is it too much to ask that Facebook vets the content of advertisers they enter into direct business with? Facebook should take a loss on this, how else are they encouraged to keep this off the site?
hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
They have a responsibility to police issues once they’ve been raised though. What if your likeness was used in an Instagram add that significantly harmed your image or ability to earn income? Edit: but just because you’re big and have automated most of your business, doesn’t mean you should be able to claim ignorance. If I build a robot that shoots enemy combatants and it walks around shooting civilians, I can’t just go ‘oh well auditing these things automatically is hard so I guess it’ll just have to work that way’.
- richwater 3y ago
  Tom Hanks posted 16 hours ago, on a weekend. What exactly is the timeline you're looking for here?
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    Can you register new advertisements on a weekend? If so, then they can’t cry poor when actually moderating the submissions, particularly if the registration requires no human interaction on the companies side.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    I mean, Facebook moved quickly when ISIS was uploading beheading videos, so clearly there’s a bit of room to work here.
  - eropple 3y ago
    Perhaps they shouldn't show ads on a weekend if they aren't going to take responsibility for egregious faults in real time? If you're making money at time X, you can be handling serious and personally-impacting problems at time X.
candiddevmike 3y ago
They're happy to handle DMCA takedowns for content, wouldn't the same thing apply to ads?
Veserv 3y ago
They should be 100% strictly liable for any lies at all of any form in advertising they show. The media companies can then solve the risk like everybody else by requiring their ad providers to indemnify the media companies for any liability that arises from any lies in the provided ads. If the media companies do not trust the ad providers to have adequate funds to fully indemnify them then they can demand the ad providers to post bonds or insurance demonstrating adequate funds. Alternatively, the media companies can police their ads they display or demand adequate proof for high value ad placements to minimize their risk. They have plenty of bog standard options to mitigate any strict liability risk. And assigning strict liability to the media companies for any lies guarantees any damaged parties full access to relief for any harms enacted on them.

richbell 3y ago

I think it's reasonable for platforms to be held to a basic standard of due diligence, especially with repeat offenders. YouTube has been promoting the exact same financial scam (Tessler AI investor created by Elon Musk) for years. The fraudsters haven't even bothered to change the video — there is ignorance, and then there is negligence. If platforms aren't liable for their advertisements in some respect, there's a direct financial incentive for them to look the other way.

klabb3 3y ago
Something something ads are free speech!!

Barrin92 3y ago

we probably should given that Facebook, unlike with user content, takes a direct cut of a transaction. Seems to me like the incentives are completely out of whack if Facebook can profit from illegal content on their platform. Is it too much to ask that Facebook vets the content of advertisers they enter into direct business with? Facebook should take a loss on this, how else are they encouraged to keep this off the site?

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago

They have a responsibility to police issues once they’ve been raised though. What if your likeness was used in an Instagram add that significantly harmed your image or ability to earn income? Edit: but just because you’re big and have automated most of your business, doesn’t mean you should be able to claim ignorance. If I build a robot that shoots enemy combatants and it walks around shooting civilians, I can’t just go ‘oh well auditing these things automatically is hard so I guess it’ll just have to work that way’.

richwater 3y ago
Tom Hanks posted 16 hours ago, on a weekend. What exactly is the timeline you're looking for here?
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  Can you register new advertisements on a weekend? If so, then they can’t cry poor when actually moderating the submissions, particularly if the registration requires no human interaction on the companies side.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  I mean, Facebook moved quickly when ISIS was uploading beheading videos, so clearly there’s a bit of room to work here.
- eropple 3y ago
  Perhaps they shouldn't show ads on a weekend if they aren't going to take responsibility for egregious faults in real time? If you're making money at time X, you can be handling serious and personally-impacting problems at time X.

candiddevmike 3y ago

They're happy to handle DMCA takedowns for content, wouldn't the same thing apply to ads?

Veserv 3y ago

They should be 100% strictly liable for any lies at all of any form in advertising they show. The media companies can then solve the risk like everybody else by requiring their ad providers to indemnify the media companies for any liability that arises from any lies in the provided ads. If the media companies do not trust the ad providers to have adequate funds to fully indemnify them then they can demand the ad providers to post bonds or insurance demonstrating adequate funds. Alternatively, the media companies can police their ads they display or demand adequate proof for high value ad placements to minimize their risk. They have plenty of bog standard options to mitigate any strict liability risk. And assigning strict liability to the media companies for any lies guarantees any damaged parties full access to relief for any harms enacted on them.