Facebook To Block Ads From State-Controlled Media Entities In the US (axios.com) 36
Facebook said Thursday it will begin blocking state-controlled media outlets from buying advertising in the U.S. this summer. It's also rolling out a new set of labels to provide users with transparency around ads and posts from state-controlled outlets. Outlets that feel wrongly labeled can appeal the process. Axios reports: Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of security policy, says the company hasn't seen many examples yet of foreign governments using advertising to promote manipulative content to U.S. users, but that the platform is taking this action out of an abundance of caution ahead of the 2020 election. Beginning Thursday, the types of state-backed media that U.S. users will see labels on include outlets like Russia's Sputnik, China's People's Daily, Iran's Tasnim News Agency and others. [...]
The purpose of labeling these outlets is to give users transparency about any kind of potential bias a state-backed entity may have when providing information to U.S. users. Gleicher says it's labeling these outlets, not removing them altogether, because in many places around the world, state-backed media is the only form of local news. Facebook considers an outlet to be state-backed not just if it takes state funding, but also based on the organization's structure (whether a government official helps them make editorial decisions) and whether there are clear indications that the entity has editorial independence (like a law or charter granting them that independence).
The purpose of labeling these outlets is to give users transparency about any kind of potential bias a state-backed entity may have when providing information to U.S. users. Gleicher says it's labeling these outlets, not removing them altogether, because in many places around the world, state-backed media is the only form of local news. Facebook considers an outlet to be state-backed not just if it takes state funding, but also based on the organization's structure (whether a government official helps them make editorial decisions) and whether there are clear indications that the entity has editorial independence (like a law or charter granting them that independence).
block facebook ftw (Score:2)
I just don't use facebook. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep telling my wife this as it's a firehose of drama she's always investing herself in ... and yet the endless scrolling continues.
Re: (Score:2)
If she wasn't doing that she'd be watching a TV news channel. Which is worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point... My wife has given up both for the time being.. Lucky me. :)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't argue with the news, though, you just turn it off.
Re: (Score:2)
also the news doesn't have your relatives/friends/acquaintances giving instant and often hostile feed back ... furthering the drama feed back loop.
I've never had a facebook/twitter/instagram/whateverthefuck account and every time she wants to talk to me about some drama from social media I reminder her that life without it is much less trouble.
Re: block facebook ftw (Score:1)
The idiots who pick your president will though.
Idiots: "Problem solved."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the theater of the absurd over at Facebook.. But if you think about it, that's pretty much their whole business..
However, that doesn't stop us from asking the question.. "So, Facebook, how are you going to tell who's a state sponsored advertiser? I mean anybody can buy advertising and SAY they are not state sponsored, but be taking rubles, um, cash from some government. Please tell us, how are you going to tell?"
Regardless how they attempt to answer, my response is "Yea, you sure that's going to wor
State-Controlled Media Entities In the US (Score:2)
Fox? (Score:2)
How do they reasonably define "state controlled"? Does golfing with the head of state count? Running a Super-PAC? Former members of the government? People owed or looking for a favor?
Controlled is a very squishy term. You can control in a lot of ways, it's not just through ownership.
Re: Fox? (Score:2)
They mean anyone connected to the countries the US/UK loot for oil reserves and selling heroin.
obviously child and weapons traffickers and the heroin cartels can still use the platform as long as they have US citizenship.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well as long as they provide the same guidance for corporate entities and their blatant bullshit advertising. No, buying a car with a long bonnet will not make your penis bigger. All the lies about makeup, jewellery, overseas holidays, movies, any product you care to mention, I bet those fuckers at Facebook will vet none of those. A bullshit announcement target at countries that are squeezing Facebook right out of countries and Facebook is having a big sook.
Lowest of the low hanging fruit.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC isn't state controlled.
It doesn't even receive any money from the UK government IIRC, its all funded by the license fee (and by money it gets for selling its programming to others)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, if government points a gun at you, there is no difference if they demand you put the money in their pocket or someone else's.
Only US state-controlled entities are allowed (Score:1)
How about Donny? (Score:1)
Waiit a minute ... I thought that means US-control (Score:1)
While Russia and China might influence the election badly, does anyone really think Trump's goons would be any better? ... ever. ;)
Or Biden's, if they were competent at anything at all
So Trump and Biden's puppet masters can still spew lies, FUD, and gaslight people at will? So it will still be de-facto a fake democracy?
And official lobbyists (aka criminals committing treason, which should get one 20 years in frison for the mere attempt!) are not even considered??
Yeah, if you choose to play police, you gotta
Re: (Score:2)
The ostensible job of media is to investigate all these statements. Part of that is putting disclaimers on foreign (dictatorship especially) government propaganda. You deserve to know who is speaking, which has always been a major problem, but is in overdrive on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
True. However, maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see how this is relevant to a story about adding disclaimers to original content which is posted by the official accounts of large media organisations. (And, not in direct response to your comment, if people can't figure out who's behind "People's Daily, China" without the aid of a disclaimer, adding a disclaimer doesn't solve the real proble
Re: (Score:2)
While Russia and China might influence the election badly, does anyone really think Trump's goons would be any better? Or Biden's, if they were competent at anything at all ... ever. ;)
So Trump and Biden's puppet masters can still spew lies, FUD, and gaslight people at will? So it will still be de-facto a fake democracy?
And official lobbyists (aka criminals committing treason, which should get one 20 years in frison for the mere attempt!) are not even considered??
Yeah, if you choose to play police, you gotta do all of it, or nothing. Because otherwise you have become a controlled media entity / publisher with editors too! And then Trump is within his right to demand to ban you too. Do you want that?
You do realize that the "problem" here is the media, including social media sites like Facebook. Most media outlets are loathed to actually do their traditional job and report the facts without bias or editorializing. Today, because it's about selling advertising, the media is about sensationalism. It's all become tabloid news.
Yea, there are some places where news is done the old way, but how do they compete with the loud shrill voices of the rest?
Disingenious at best (Score:2)
If that is the rule, fine apply to ALL national broadcasters from ALL countries. USA PBS included.
So they are stopping (Score:2)
Any ads from CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NBC, MSNBC, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and New York Times?
Really? (Score:2)
Are they going to start labeling the likes of the BBC? How about organizations like PBS which receive a lot of money from the government but are in theory indepnendent?
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the BBC is independent even if they are funded by force of law though license fees to the users. In the UK, you pay the BBC directly, though the government forces you to.
But yea, Facebook has taken a position on principle that they cannot possibly deliver. It was a stupid idea to announce it, but I suppose they figured the positive PR about their principle was worth the coming backlash.
Good Morning (Score:1)
"the company hasn't seen many examples yet" (Score:2)
Then again... the company's blind as a bat so...