3 ms·
They should be held liable. Just like a TV ad needs to be reviewed, vetted and is ultimately monitored and people can be fined for missrepresentation, why is so
by kinnth 3y ago
They should be held liable. Just like a TV ad needs to be reviewed, vetted and is ultimately monitored and people can be fined for missrepresentation, why is social media which is not streaming video content any different?
- capableweb 3y agoI'm guessing these platforms will claim that the ads are "user generated content" and therefore they should be able to only post-review content posted and not be liable for anything, rather than pre-review and be liable when stuff slips through.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoAd industry people will tell you that the scale is “simply too large” and “how could we possibly?”. These are deterrences from reality, and if we were forced to take a close look at a large majority of online advertising we would plainly see that it ranges from the outright sketchy, to borderline lying and certainly user-harassing. They worry that if too much scrutiny were applied, they might actually face some consequences for their actions and we might reevaluate their position as arbiters of “what’s viable” on the internet.
- Yeul 3y agoWebsites that take their reputation seriously do vet their online ads. Facebook just isn't one of those I guess.
- spondylosaurus 3y agoThere are legitimately billions of ads served every day. How do we ensure that nothing falls through the cracks?
- bobthepanda 3y agoIs billions of poorly moderated ads a good thing?
- spondylosaurus 3y agoNot at all, lol. But closing Pandora's Box is a non-trivial task.
- bobthepanda 3y agoI dunno. Billions of not-ads get served on Facebook yet they were able to clamp down on stuff like ISIS uploading decapitations.
- serf 3y agono it isn't. the only difficulty is "can we stay afloat financially and do so?" , which is a different task. imagine if the FDA or some other sort of stringent agency had that kind of remark. "Well, we make 3 billion pills a day, of COURSE 15% of those are going to be deadly poison." -- wouldn't fly for a second. the excuse of "Well it's going to be real tough to reduce the amount of poison pills while still making trillions in profit" would be equally useless; society wouldn't (and shouldn't) care about that.
- dwb 3y ago“We”? Adverts aren’t some mutually beneficial utility that more or less everyone is interested in saving.
- Veserv 3y agoThat is easy. The ad placers are liable for 100% of the harm caused. They can figure out how to deal with it so they stop causing harm. A simple solution is requiring the companies providing the ads to be placed to indemnify the ad placers. That means the ad placers push the monetary liability onto their customers to only provide legitimate ads. As they know exactly who their customers are and can vet them it is trivial for them to go after them if they are sketchy. Easy. Next problem.
- dumpsterdiver 3y agoRight? Like, "Oh my gosh, how can I ever be expected to take responsibility for all of the actions I perform with my body?!" "Oh gosh, I opened the door and a bunch of rats came in... I haven't closed it yet. What can I possibly do to take care of this rat problem?"
- whateveracct 3y agoI guess they'll have to serve fewer ads then to make it more manageable.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoAh yes you seem to be labouring under the assumption that many of us care about sustaining the ad industry.