Zuckerberg Doubles Down on Facebook Political Ads Policy After Twitter Ban (thehill.com) 177
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has ardently defended Facebook's controversial political advertising policy hours after Twitter took a shot at its rival while announcing it will ban all political ads from its platform. From a report: "Although I've considered whether we should not carry [political] ads in the past, and I'll continue to do so, on balance so far I've thought we should continue," Zuckerberg told investors on a quarterly earnings call. "Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates," he added. Facebook directed The Hill to Zuckerberg's remarks in response to an inquiry about Twitter's announcement. Zuckerberg and Facebook have been hit with a firestorm of criticism this month over its policy allowing politicians to lie in advertisements. For several weeks, Zuckerberg has engaged in an unusually public charm offensive as he seeks to defend Facebook's ad practices against critics who have accused the company of profiting off of and even encouraging political misinformation. Zuckerberg in the month of October offered interviews on Fox News and NBC, gave a public speech at Georgetown University, and testified before Congress about his view that Facebook should build policies to promote "free expression." Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tore into those arguments with the series of tweets announcing his company's policy change.
How about this one simple rule (Score:4, Insightful)
You can only talk about yourself in your ads, political or commercial.
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you don't get to police what others talk about?
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you don't get to police what others talk about?
How about we have an intellectual debate between candidates and their constituents with effective feedback instead of the constant stream of shit slinging the parent is referring to?
There is no other way to describe a US election now other than Political Civil War, and honestly that stupid shit needs to stop no matter where you stand in politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's sad. Allowing someone to police what others can say is even worse.
Power over others is the problem. If no one had it and no one could get it, then politics would go back to being about maintaining roads. Serving the public completely lost out to policing each other and giveaways of others' money a long time ago. That's why we are poorly served and why people are mad at each other all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A police crackdown and violent censorship of speech and speakers. That's the alternative.
Who needs a police crackdown (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A police crackdown and violent censorship of speech and speakers. That's the alternative."
No need for an alternative. Regulation works fine, tweaking them isn't a police crackdown and violent censorship of speech and speakers.
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:4, Insightful)
Would it be ok for supremacist organizations to run counter-ads attacking candidates for being Jewish, Muslim, Black, or whatever?
If you realistically think that this would be a successful campaign, the country already has bigger problems.
Re: (Score:3)
This country already has this problem. The ads exist, but they are slightly less on the nose.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a lot of people out there making decisions based on things they heard on the news programs. I've watched the news programs.
Trust me, the country already has bigger problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for your example related to fake claims about a product, there's already sufficient recourse for that. This could be construed as fraud in the case of business transactions because you've violated a contract where your product failed to live up to cl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you done FB ads? I can easily make an anonymous party, use a burner credit card, and throw ads there with all kinds of lies about a specific group. I can also target it to whomever I like, be it just right wing people, or Antifa symphatizers. I can state anything, and there is no recourse except that my ads might get pulled, which means I just create another FB account and do it again.
Simple stuff, and can cause a shitload of rabble rousing.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, who gets to determine something is a lie. For example, if one candidate says, "My opponent doesn't care about the poor!" Is that a lie? Perhaps in the strictest sense. But the implication here is that one candidate feels that the actions of their opponent demonstrates that their opponent doesn't care about the poor. The reality is likely that the opposing candidate cares about the poor, but supports policy that their opponent doesn't. But should we stop the first candidate from saying such t
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-vaccination insanity is not just "speech", it's an attempt to (a) scam parents usually by trying to sell them crap that doesn't work to "replace" vaccines, like essential-oil bullshit, or (b) an attempt to get them to essentially commit negligence which can harm the kids.
Neo-nazi rhetoric, racial supremacist rhetoric, and other forms of bigotry are never just "speech", they are calls to action and promotion of violence against vulnerab
Re: (Score:2)
The limit happens when The People stop participating in things that support lying and spreading fake concepts.
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
> How about we have an intellectual debate between candidates and their constituents with effective feedback instead of the constant stream of shit slinging the parent is referring to?
Ok, show us all how.
>a US election now other than Political Civil War,
That is every election. The point is that you rely on the ballot and soap box so you don't use the ammo box. Every election, especially presidential, are like a simulated civil war. Head count what each side has.
This happens throughout history when a nation or society goes through some kind of change. Whether you like it or not Trump is a symptom of change. Normally, these kind of cultural shifts would result in an actual war but we catharticly argue over politics on the internet instead of forming ranks to march on a territory because of their political leaning (what happened preceding Civil War).
I think the Electoral College is genius by allowing the minority some representation in the Executive. It's cathartic to have your guy win against the odds and to do things you want. If that minority never won, their resentment would grow until they decided the soap and ballot box have failed. We don't have that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with what you say is that "it's all fair in love and war", including any dirty tricks - has become the norm, and that's bad.
That whole love/war concept is hundreds of years old. How long you gonna wait for it to become the "norm"?
Come to think of it, when did we humans ever play fair in love and/or war?
Seems the only justified reason to continue embracing that "bad" ideology after hundreds of years, is because humans are simply too stupid to avoid it.
That's not the purpose of the electoral college (Score:2)
Nowadays this is mostly done with voter suppression and Gerrymandering, but for the single national election we have that doesn't work. Hence the EC.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, however it's not going to get any better without some sort of reckoning. I agree it should stop, but I'm not for stopping it unless it's mutual disarmament.
Re: (Score:3)
How about we have an intellectual debate between candidates and their constituents with effective feedback instead of the constant stream of shit slinging the parent is referring to?
But where would the dark money fit into this scenario? We have to have PAC's and other organizations involved or else those with money won't be heard.
Politics needs PACs about as much as a mega-church needs a tax exemption.
And those with money are In Control. They will always be heard.
Re: (Score:2)
PACs exist so that the people without tons of money can be heard. I can't afford to buy a radio ad, much less a TV ad - but I can team up with a bunch of my friends, form a PAC, each donate a little bit, and get our ad on TV.
As you said, the people with the money are already in control. Making it easier for the people without the money to get their voices out there is what is needed... and that requires PACs, and rulings like .
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:4, Informative)
How about you don't get to police what others talk about?
Except the last election was influenced by foreign powers who leveraged the facts that (a) facebook conversations are not policed and (b) people are easily swayed by foreign countries pretending to be Americans with incendiary opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, she isn't even in politics anymore. Not running for anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is they're already 'policed', and there are standards and requirements for TV ads, but they don't apply to Facebook ads (etc..) How about just applying the same standards across platforms?
Re: (Score:3)
So Congress should make a law rather than "Congress shall make no law". Am I understanding you correctly?
Re: (Score:3)
>Surely Facebook has enough staff to do a quick fact check before accepting ads
Ok, this started with the political ad talking about Biden, his son, Ukranian quid-pro-quo. What was the lie? Both sides have valid points made in that particular gaffe. At what point is it a "lie" or not and which side is lying when they both have evidence to support their claims and arguments to retort evidence.
For example, Biden will say that it was investigated and that the prosecutor was fired for corruption.
Trump will sa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Couldn't it be argued that calling her Pocahontas is a form of fact checking spiced with a bit of humor? It's a fact check in meme form.
Not if it means you can't see beyond it and address any of the very valid political points she's making.
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are concerned about politicians lying such that Facebook should employ a legion of fact checkers. But making fun a politician for lying is "can't see beyond it".
Honestly, it sounds like the only reason I hear to stop saying Pocahontas is because it's effective. With a single word you can encapsulate so much.
> very valid political points
My opinion? Not really. She has a tax and spend platform trying to out left Sanders with other ridiculous proposals like getting rid of the Electoral College. She want's to play the field as "I'm a socialist like Sanders but I still like capitalism so I won't change anything". She's trying to run as the "I have ideas! Look at my Ivy League education career. I am booksmart". POTUS is not the idea person position. POTUS is the leader of the military and the diplomat that is the one to contend with China, Russia, and NK. I don't see her fairing well against those adversaries. Obama didn't have a good foreign policy and it showed. I think Obama is miles above Warren in that regard.
She's as fake as her Native Heritage and no "I'm a drink a beer. I'm just like you little people" Instagram streams is convincing of her authenticity. She's Clinton without the Bill. While that's great in not having a room full of sexual assault accusers in a debate front row, she lacks the savvy to make up for her shortfall in any kind of hard questioning. She looks like a deer in headlights when pushed on anything. That's fine when it's other democrats but if she is the nominee she's going to look pathetic. "Would you let your VP do what Biden did with his son? " Warren: "Yes. No. I don't know. I'd have to think about it.". You want that as a leader? "Sir, we need a decision" Warren "I don't know. I need to think about it." Ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one is the lie and how do you find the truth when it is buried in hearsay, classified reports, investigations in and by foreign nations, and hidden department actors?
By reading an article [reuters.com] written by a real reporter for a real news organization?
Sadly, while Reuters reporters are still doing their jobs, Reuters Internet advertising sales people are utterly incompetent morons, which gives their website a certain stench of illegitimacy. It's a shame.
Except Warren didn't do that (Score:2)
So why did she do it? Because it was the 70s numbnut. Everybody had Indian blood in the 70s. It was a fad. Like eating Tide Pods and Car Surfing. She wanted to be an Indian Princess. It's no worse than getting a DNA test and bragging about how your great, great, great grand daddy was the king of Prussia. Kinda stupid in hindsight, but completely harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
> It was a fad
And I now completely understand her political platform. "Just a fad". As changing as the wind flowing over the buffalo running free on native lands. No substance. No authenticity. Free and wild like eagle soaring over head on native summer day. Pandering and fake. Like college Thots discovering reincarnation thinking their past lives were that of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great. Perhaps maybe 1024th Egyptian Princess.
Who knows what her fad will be next! Find out on the next exciting episod
Re: (Score:3)
I'm talking about lying. Surely Facebook has enough staff to do a quick fact check before accepting ads.
Surely you can see the problem here. If they're supposed to censor "false" political ads, then only opinions they agree with are allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, let's be fair. She deserves 1024'th the jabs.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe, the only person to ever FAIL a DNA test deserves the jabs?
So.... what does Bankrupt Chief Piss Swiller deserve?
Should we all sink to his level?
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea but pols will simply game the system. I can see ads along the lines of "Pol X will never support ".
All it takes is for a Pol's opponent to come out with some sort of plan for something and ad's like this will grow like weeds.
Re:How about this one simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
But why is it a good idea?
Hoo, boy. I think we found the problem!
How about politicians get elected based on their policies and what they can do for us instead of lies and saying "the other guy is even worse than me"?
Politics isn't a high-school prom popularity contest, the winners get to run the country and run amok with billions of our dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
> How about politicians get elected based on their policies
Sometimes elections are not based on just policies? Let's use a specific example. Let's say there is a politician that committed a crime while in office (abusing that office to enrich himself), arrested, and imprisoned. Then after serving his time he decides to run for the same office. You agree with his policy. Do you vote for him?
According to you, we should vote for him because we agree with the polices and ignore the crimes he committed while
Ranked choice voting (Score:2)
1. It's winner take all. So all you have to do it get 51%.
2. Voter suppression means you can pick and choose your voters, like a guilty man picking and choosing their jurors.
Ranked choice voting fixes #1 and mandatory voting fixes #2. Can't suppress something mandated by statute. And yes, let _everybody_ vote. If your country has so many ax murders and pedophiles they're deciding elections in a place with mandatory voting then maybe fix th
Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm against lying, but at a certain point you have to realize that a platform providing speech is not the same thing as condoning that same speech. If CNN interviews a criminal, they are not condoning that criminal's opinion.
Or should we assume that Twitter Inc agrees with every tweet ever made?
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
If CNN interviews a criminal, they are not condoning that criminal's opinion.
I don't think they have interviewed trump yet, have they?
Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?
There are regulations that restrict lying in advertisements for laundry detergent. Why shouldn't there be in politics. I'm not talking about the broken system we have now, i'm talking about the way it should be. Just fucking tell the truth, and if you can't then FUCK OFF. The fact that we have grown so comfortable with our leaders lying to our face is disturbing, the fact that people are arguing for them to be able to lie to us more often in more places is terrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
And this completely ignores any problems of the people charged with findin
Re: (Score:2)
It’s pretty simple to determine if a detergent does what it claims.
Hence laundry balls.
And homeopathy.
And...
Re: (Score:3)
*Free public college for all. It isn't about tax dollars subsidizing the overpriced ultra elite private colleges like Harvard and Yale. It is simply an expansion of the public education system to grades 13 through 16 in acknowledgement that we need more highly educated, capable, and trained individuals in a variety of fields (though most especially STEM fields) as automation eats through large swathes of the unskilled labor jobs.
As for fact checking politi
Re: (Score:2)
we need more highly educated, capable, and trained individuals in a variety of fields (though most especially STEM fields) as automation eats through large swathes of the unskilled labor jobs.
If college were a magical box where you could have people enter one end and emerge four years later as highly educated, capable, and trained individuals you might have a point. Look at the statistics for four year graduate rates and the large number of students who've found that their degrees are of no value or help in advancing them forward and have only left them saddled with massive debt and let me know if you think more college is the answer.
The "free" educational system that everyone gets for the fi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Bernie Sanders’s proposal for free college for everyone a good idea like he claims? .
I don't care if he thinks it a good idea or not. I care if I think it's a good idea. Do I think he is lying about wanting to make free college available? I don't. I believe he does want that. Is it feasible? That's a separate discussion.
Our first amendment doesn't allow us to say "Fuck" on national network television, somehow we have managed to muddle through.
And the arguments about whats true and whats not bullshit. I refuse to be pulled into a world where facts don't exist. Many things are very easy to
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are all around us, and they have no alternatives, despite what some people might want you to believe.
But omitting certain facts allows one to speak truth while leading people to draw false or unproven conclusions.
The matter at hand with regards to FaceBook and allowing "lies" is a Trump ad that tells no actual lies. The ad asserts three things: that Hunter Biden served on the board for a Ukrainian energy company, that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating this company, and that Democrats want to impeach Trump for wanting Ukraine to investigate this. All three of those cla
Re: (Score:2)
Our first amendment doesn't allow us to say "Fuck" on national network television, somehow we have managed to muddle through.
Really? I seem to remember Richard Pryor dropping that word during SNL back in the 70s and nobody went to jail. In fact, it's happened many time since then. There was a mini series called Scared Straight back in 78 that aired on network television and it constantly featured that word. Not so much as a fine.
And the arguments about whats true and whats not bullshit. I refuse to be pulled into a world where facts don't exist.
Then get yours straight. People that have a huge hardon for censoring others' speech almost always have their facts wrong.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ?
Because I do not trust our Benevolent Overlords to correctly identify "lies" nor to evenly enforce the "no lies" rule. The correct answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I do not trust our Benevolent Overlords to correctly identify "lies" nor to evenly enforce the "no lies" rule.
Nether do I, that's why I'd have the courts do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I could agree with that. Back in the 2016 election Trump talked about wanting to "open up the libel laws" because it's too hard in the US to sue people for libel and slander. This was spun by the media as an attack on the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 2016 election Trump talked about wanting to "open up the libel laws" because it's too hard in the US to sue people for libel and slander.
Is it? The only thing making it particularly difficult is that in this country, the truth is an absolute defense against both of those things (unlike, say, in the UK, or indeed the EU.) Trump doesn't want the facts inspected in the statements he claims are libelous or slanderous... because they're true.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that in order to sue people for libel or slander you have to prove that not only did they know what they said was false, but that they also had malicious intent to cause harm.
You childish swipes at Trump are sad, drinkypoo.
That's what a court system is for (Score:2)
That said at the moment checks and balances have broken down because 1/2 of the Senate refuses to do their job in the face of overwhelming evidence and public admissions of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant to say "half the house is completely deranged attempting to impeach the president for something he did not do and which would not be illegal if he did."
Re: (Score:2)
Some of it is people who want to lie, yes. But part of it is people who see that banning lying means there has to be someone who decrees, "This is a lie, and will banned." This person or persons gets the right to determine what can be said and what can't be said. This is a Bad Thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?
Why are you hellbent on designating a ruling overlord who will decide who can speak and what they can say? If people can lie, your overlord can lie. Now if someone lies, someone else can say "that's a lie". When your overlord lies, no one will be allowed to say anything except "yes, your majesty".
This is widely understood by almost everyone. You can understand it too. Why don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is everyone hell bent on people being able to lie as much as they want ? What the fuck is happening?
Why are you hellbent on designating a ruling overlord who will decide who can speak and what they can say? If people can lie, your overlord can lie. Now if someone lies, someone else can say "that's a lie". When your overlord lies, no one will be allowed to say anything except "yes, your majesty".
This is widely understood by almost everyone. You can understand it too. Why don't you?
It being acceptable or unacceptable for politicians to knowingly lie to the general public is not intrinsically tied to the existence of an "overlord" arbitrator. That's the flaw in your argument.
Who thinks our leaders should knowingly lie to our faces?
I am not advocating for any specific remedy at this stage, merely attempting to gain some consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
It being acceptable or unacceptable for politicians to knowingly lie to the general public is not intrinsically tied to the existence of an "overlord" arbitrator. That's the flaw in your argument.
Unless you want to counter the "lies" with more speech, enforcement of censorship of "lies" is necessarily explicitly tied to some arbitrator who makes the determination of what constitutes a lie. That is unavoidable. The GP was making the case that vesting someone with the power to enforce a particular policy against what may be subjectively determined to be lying (or bias) is problematic for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an easy way to solve the problem you are talking about. When I grew (90's kid, not that long ago), all the adults had a standard joke: How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving! Summed up in this now lame
Re: (Score:2)
> What the fuck is happening? ... we have grown so comfortable with our leaders lying to our face is disturbing
Are you 12? Or never paid attention to politics until now?
>Why shouldn't there be in politics.
Because politics is not the same as buying laundry detergent. Because politicians work in a realm of language that operate in belief systems, legalities, and narrative all of which operate in parallel to truth and lies. Because you can lie even when stating only facts but omitting a few others. Because politics is all about convincing others you are right and the other person is wrong. Because the basis of democracy is that you are smart enough to figure it out and does not assume or expect an authority figure to inform you on what is important to you.
Bullshit, you say what you do and you do what you say. Period. Anything else is worthless noise.
The fact that you immediately resort to personal attacks tells me a lot about your character.
Re: (Score:2)
> you say what you do and you do what you say.
Sure. Now convince the other guy he isn't doing that. When he says he is doing that, do you figure it out yourself or do you find some outside authority to place your faith?
>The fact that you immediately resort to personal attacks tells me a lot about your character.
Ever heard the ageless joke: "Know how a politician is lying? Their lips are moving". and now it's news to you? You either are incredibly young or never paid attention until now.
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even worse than that. Dear Leader has bought off Senate Republicans with promises of campaign finance cash to promote the idea that somehow soliciting foreign help in smearing opponents is not against the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Isn't it plainly obvious by now that the vast majority of people is NOT smart enough?
No, I think people can vote in their self interest.
> Which results in the kind of government we have to day
I think too many people put too much stock into the federal government. Maybe we should reduce the federal government so that it doesn't impact the daily lives of people so that it doesn't matter of Orange man gets elected. That way they can focus on local elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it plainly obvious by now that the vast majority of people is NOT smart enough?
Fuck yes it's obvious. The problem is that both sides count on that dependable vote from idiots that never take the time to find out who the candidates are before voting. Democrats unabashedly admit their electorate is too dumb to figure out how to get an ID or re-register when they haven't voted in ten years. Voting by mail might as well be solving third order differential equations for them.
Look like evil & history ain't over quite just (Score:5, Insightful)
Never forget these companies are censoring because politicians are leaning on them about an opponent's political speech.
This is an abomination in America.
It's called "regulation by raised eyebrow", when a politician wonders loudly about something, then sics regulatory examiners on a company "for other reasons". "Hey, see if they are too big and need to be broken up."
It's bad enough when they are looking for donations, or hurting someone who supports the opposition. But to attack for not actively hurting the speech of an opponent?
Jfc
Re:Look like evil & history ain't over quite j (Score:4, Informative)
*Note: refusing to run paid advertisements does NOT mean that they are refusing to allow political speech on their platform.
Translation (Score:2)
"Politicians have lots of money and we want it, so the hell with everything else."
Asymmetrical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So some other activist is running for governor on paper just so they can put a bunch of crap up on Facebook.
Nope. Same group that tried that with the PAC also tried that. (The PAC is literally called "TROLL PAC" which should be enough of a hint that nothing they do is in good faith.)
Facebook's rules include a cause that forbids ads from people who are only running for office to be able to submit ads to Facebook. You can only run ads if you are running a real campaign for office, you can't just claim to be doing so.
And there should be no fact checking on political ads. Fact checking is inherently political. Logica
Corrected for accuracy (Score:2)
"Ads can be an important part of our income - especially for candidates and advocacy groups might not otherwise give us their money."
1st Amendment (Score:2)
The Amendments BAN GOVERNMENT with the sole purpose of stopping the infringement upon your rights. It does not give any rights; you inherently have those already.
This also means Facebook, you , I or any corporation does not have to respect any of the rights of others. Again, government is limited by the Amendments. They are allowed to institute slavery for example (prison... see Amendment 13) and judges get to handle the balancing act involved in policing how we abuse one another.
I would argue since corpo
Charm & Zuckerberg in the same sentence? (Score:2)
For several weeks, Zuckerberg has engaged in an unusually public charm offensive
I was unaware that his utterances in public were intended to be charming. How can we tell?
Re: (Score:2)
One word, Brexit (Score:2)
We're now 3 and a half years on, a divided country in disarray. Various court cases found the parties involved guilty, fines levied and yet Brexit rumbles on because all 3 parties made a poltical declaration they would honour an advisory referendu
If all of us paid for ads ... (Score:2)
... we could trash the platform but Zuckerberg would be much wealthier.
Get even ... (Score:2)
... get an adblocker. Let the candidates know about it.
Let the community figure it out (Score:4)
I think the best solution for this is to just affix political ads with a fact-finding link where the community can look into and discuss whether it's true. FB comments are horrible for this, so maybe just a straight-up forum page or even something like a wiki page.
Monopoly is the problem, not political ads (Score:2)
Public debate about banning on political ads on Twitter vs. not on Facebook has gone fully off the rails. Both Dorsey and Zuckerberg are wrong about it, but--counter intuitively--Zuckerberg has it less wrong than Dorsey.
Where Zuckerberg's instincts are kinda right is I think he recognizes on some level that when one company has control over like 90% of a media market and can make decisions about what speech is or isn't allowed, we might want to consider applying 1st amendment protections.
Yes, there is a "bU
Re: (Score:2)
There are no monopolies in online media. You are free to espouse your opinion or buy ads on countless platforms. You are conflating reach, which is orthogonal to the business offered. You are essentially making the "McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac, and Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone, oh noes!!!" argument.
Also, the "i WiLl miX uPPeR and lower case to make it clear I am mocking my hysterical opponent" (I got bored halfway through) meme is one of the top 3 annoying things twitter people do. The m
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes there are.
Imagine if on Gmail you couldn't email anybody outside of Gmail.
That's how Facebook and Twitter are today, it's a monopoly.
Consider this... (Score:2)
Can those calling for government control of speech in the US please consider this one thing:
If voted into law by Congress today, your President, one Donald J. Trump, would be responsible for implementing procedures and enforcing the rules.
Please. Think about that VERY carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
wtf? (Score:2)
Both Facebook and Twitter are just glorified multiuser blogs. WTH?
They only have the power that you give them in your mind.
I am mostly unconcerned about the quality (if there be such a thing) of graffiti.
I did Nazi that coming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The genie's not going back in the bottle without major societal conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of the western world already conflates holding certain political views with having moral superiority
Only half?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The call has gone out to censor political ads. The people that make such calls have decided they can gain some advantage by censoring, hiding, or policing these ads.
The groupthink is being built up. Will you go along? Be one of the crowd?
Now is the time to decide, while you still have the opportunity to decide anything.
Perhaps the conspiracy here is assuming there's still actual value in political "ads", which now are nothing more than a fucking constant stream of shit slinging against their opponent.
When political ads start delivering something more than vitriol, perhaps voters will respond in kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Now now, if you worked at an advertising and media company, you'd realize advertising has value as a revenue source. Get a job at Facebook and maybe we could get you to advocate for the political ad trade being unconstrained.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the conspiracy here is assuming there's still actual value in political "ads", which now are nothing more than a fucking constant stream of shit slinging against their opponent.
When political ads start delivering something more than vitriol, perhaps voters will respond in kind.
You don't get to decide "value" for other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the conspiracy here is assuming there's still actual value in political "ads", which now are nothing more than a fucking constant stream of shit slinging against their opponent.
When political ads start delivering something more than vitriol, perhaps voters will respond in kind.
You don't get to decide "value" for other people.
You're right. I don't get to decide what's valued in politics. Common F. Sense probably should, but it's rather obvious the voting base would prefer to be entertained with shit slinging.
Yes, let's allow Identity Politics to continue unrestrained, because Freedom. I mean after all, it's brought so much "value" to our democracy. Hell, just elect a teenager to lead the country, because that whole minimum age requirement is racist anyway, and I'm certain a 19-year old kid is at least as wise as they think th
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, just elect a teenager to lead the country, because that whole minimum age requirement is racist anyway, and I'm certain a 19-year old kid is at least as wise as they think they are.
Newt: Why don't you put her in charge? [wordpress.com]
groupthink has always been with us (Score:2)
Groupthink is a human FLAW. It never goes away.
Unlimited speech is groupthink too. Peer pressure (culture, indoctrination, tradition) is a part of life and to some degree we all give into it. It's evolved to make us work together in our tiny tribes to survive. We also don't scale beyond the size of a tribe; thankfully, that is abstract enough we can identify with larger tribes to some degree (which probably is dumb luck our brains work in such a fuzzy abstract way that allows this.) Unfortunately, it's no
Not About Lies, It's About Fear of Being Outspent (Score:2)
If this were a genuine concern they would have pushed for ad platform restrictions back in 2017/2018 during the midterm elections season. You'll remember back then the Blue Wave enthusiasm was through the roof after Trump's first year, Democrats were out-raising and out-spending Republicans by significant amounts for almost every congressional seat that was up for grabs, and every week there was a new allegation by someone who waited decades to finally tell a reporter. The Democratic Party had the wind at t
What Censorship? (Score:2)
I suppose you could say that Twitter allowing generic "Get out and Vote" adverts is bias towards one political party. But what the hell does it say about the other party that the only way they can win is to prevent Democracy from happening?