Who is fact-checking political ads on television or in newspapers? Who is fact checking "opinion" shows on cable news that present overtly biased and occasionally outright false information?
The implication in this debate is that the "wrong" candidate only got elected because some voters had bad information and were tricked. Maybe parties need to look at what they are offering voters and what they have actually delivered in the past to get to the root of why people either don't want what they're offering or don't believe it will actually come to pass.
The issue with fact-checking Facebook ads vs. TV or newspaper is one of targeting and timing.
Facebook ads can be micro-targeted to the point where they're only seen by a very small audience, which is simply not possible in mainstream TV or newspaper. If you have a misleading campaign on TV (e.g., swift boat stuff on Kerry in '04), that can be recognized and called out (not that the dems were super effective at that then...). However with Facebook, it's much more challenging given the small sample size to (1) see all of the ads people are seeing and (2) figure out who has been exposed to them.
So at the end of the day, it's tougher to identify misinformation, and then if you do identify it it's pretty much impossible to re-message the same audience with the correct info. Add timing to that (many campaigns are only up for 24-48 hours) and you start to see why this is a fundamentally different beast from TV and newspaper ads.
One of the blunter but potentially effective solutions is to have a much larger minimum audience size, which is what Google moved to (although still at a pretty small scale).
Interestingly this is the same guy who felt like he needed to use his billions to take down Gawker because he didn't like what they said about him. Evidently he doesn't care about ad messages on Facebook though as long as it doesn't impact him. Or maybe he thinks is okay because he can always use his money to protect himself. Long story short the Gawker incident just goes to show that Theil has absolutely no moral high ground here and that his reason for supporting these ads has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech" or any other positive moral trope.
Super curious what would happen if someone started an ad campaign on Facebook about Peter Theil though...
Gawker published a private sex tape (Hulk Hogan's) without permission on the grounds that it is "news" in order to make its publication legal. I can't see how anyone could say Gawker had the moral high ground, they were a despicable organization whose only business model was publishing private information/revenge porn for profit
This is also a man who bought a huge remote property in NZ (and went so far as to get NZ citizenship) as insurance in case the world goes to shit.
I've read/seen many interviews with people who've known him in the past and very few people have nice things to say about him as a human being, but all agree he's got a "unique" view of things.
Facebook is so full of themselves - they think they can run the world etc. Doesn't hurt that the mainstream media are (baselessly) convinced of it. Corbyn's campaign heavily dominated social media in the UK and it turned to a catastrophe. The rules for posting on their pages and using their API have become obnoxiously stupid. few days ago i got a request asking about a surge in calls to their API 5 years ago, as if i can remember (or give a shit about their API access for that matter). the witch hunting has gone out of hand , but i m loving to watch facebook and everyone else bursting in flames over who can manipulate the most. bring it on
Facebook has increasingly become a media property for boomers and the technically illiterate. It is the “spam folder” of the internet. We used to have to build tech to filter spam, phishing and forwards with stupid nonsense and now we’ve got it all wrapped up nicely in the various a Facebook properties.
Facebook doesn’t realize that what it’s really become is humanities supermarket tabloid.
The insanity is that in the UK and in the US you have massive propaganda outlets misinforming the public financed by their own billionaires. I'm sure Russian propaganda is trying to get the outcomes they want, why wouldn't they? But the idea that they are more effective/more worrisome than Murdoch and co is ridiculous.
That said, Corbyn won every age group < 40 [1]. So those most likely to be heavily invested in social media did seem to get the message...
Facebook took down an ad by a left-leaning politician that said Lindsey Graham supports the Green New Deal. It's only Republicans that are allowed to lie in Facebook ads. It's transparently a Trump-reelection strategy.
> “Mark is friends with Peter Thiel and a lot of Republicans,” said a former Facebook employee who worked in its political group. “It’s a reality people aren’t willing to accept.”
I think there's a reasonable distinction to be drawn between "friends with Republicans" and "friends with Peter Thiel", who is a very particular kind of Republican. I have a bunch of Republican friends. I don't think I have any Thielian friends?
that's someone whose job is on the line being polite about a board member's political activism.
the less polite way to put it would be that Peter Thiel is balls-deep in all kinds of dark-money republican activism and would really prefer to keep Russian propaganda all over facebook because it's advantageous for his tax rates.
More like, being friends with a known crank and general creepo. Seriously, if Zuckerberg was friends with say George Will that would be one thing but Thiel is just a flake with too many dollars in his pocket than he deserves.
You want them to only be friends with Democrats? That's the future we want right, only one-sided? I'm sure Mark is friend with people from both parties, that quote needs a citation. Hell the guy has met with other world leaders before. I'm not a Mark Zuckerberg fan mind you.
he is right. it is not because ads are not favorable to your agenda that you should ban them. what kind of democracy are we living in. California is a world outside of reality
> Mr. Thiel has argued that Facebook should stick to its controversial decision... to continue accepting [political ads with no fact checking]
Okay, so just to recap:
1. Thiel is the investor who made billions off of Facebook before becoming a high-profile Trump supporter.
2. Trump is the guy who became president thanks in no small part to misinformation campaigns at scale made possible by Facebook's ad platform.
3. Thiel is now one of the strongest voices arguing that Facebook should remain in the political misinformation-for-profit business.
I couldn't read the entire article due to paywall, but forgive me for having doubts that Thiel's convictions are based on a desire to do what's right for democracy.
ignoring the totally insubstantiable claim that facebook ads got trump elected, the alternative is making facebook the gatekeeper of political truth. this scares me much more than six figure ad spends in a presidential election.
It's funny how it's controversial for FB to not to want to be the Ministry of Truth.
If you don't trust them with your data, why would you trust them with the truth.
Allow all ads and let the people decide for themselves.
But if you're on the side that is providing the fact-checkers, I see how you'd want your propaganda be stamped with an approval and your opponents facts be dismissed with a fake news label.
Censorship is a slippery slope guys...
We don't fact check polical ads on newspapers or TV ads. There is a reason for this. Jesus fucking Christ.
Do you think Facebook should publish an ad that says there is a security problem with your bank account and you need to login immediately to fix it? (The ad links to a phishing site that pretends to be your bank’s website but actually steals your account credentials.)
Do you think Facebook should publish an ad that falsely claims that the date of an election has been changed?
Agreed! People think it's so easy to determine what's true or not at scale. Do I want Facebook employees or (algorithms written by them) making that call? No way.
In Canada political ads are regulated so that they must always clearly disclose who they were paid for and by what party. I think that's a good place to start which doesn't censor anything, but enforces disclosure.
> Allow all ads and let the people decide for themselves.
I think that's an argument for banning targeted ads? In a way, you can think of targeted ads as a form of censorship. I can't see what someone else does.
I wonder if censorship can go both ways? You can censor the message, but you can also argue that the listener can be censored.
[+] [-] imgabe|6 years ago|reply
The implication in this debate is that the "wrong" candidate only got elected because some voters had bad information and were tricked. Maybe parties need to look at what they are offering voters and what they have actually delivered in the past to get to the root of why people either don't want what they're offering or don't believe it will actually come to pass.
[+] [-] jlwits|6 years ago|reply
Facebook ads can be micro-targeted to the point where they're only seen by a very small audience, which is simply not possible in mainstream TV or newspaper. If you have a misleading campaign on TV (e.g., swift boat stuff on Kerry in '04), that can be recognized and called out (not that the dems were super effective at that then...). However with Facebook, it's much more challenging given the small sample size to (1) see all of the ads people are seeing and (2) figure out who has been exposed to them.
So at the end of the day, it's tougher to identify misinformation, and then if you do identify it it's pretty much impossible to re-message the same audience with the correct info. Add timing to that (many campaigns are only up for 24-48 hours) and you start to see why this is a fundamentally different beast from TV and newspaper ads.
One of the blunter but potentially effective solutions is to have a much larger minimum audience size, which is what Google moved to (although still at a pretty small scale).
[+] [-] Mangalor|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NathanKP|6 years ago|reply
Super curious what would happen if someone started an ad campaign on Facebook about Peter Theil though...
[+] [-] maxlamb|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hylaride|6 years ago|reply
I've read/seen many interviews with people who've known him in the past and very few people have nice things to say about him as a human being, but all agree he's got a "unique" view of things.
[+] [-] monksy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] licebmi__at__|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themagician|6 years ago|reply
Facebook doesn’t realize that what it’s really become is humanities supermarket tabloid.
[+] [-] Certhas|6 years ago|reply
That said, Corbyn won every age group < 40 [1]. So those most likely to be heavily invested in social media did seem to get the message...
[1] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1...
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrosett|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rayiner|6 years ago|reply
Friends. With Republicans. The horror.
[+] [-] tptacek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulmd|6 years ago|reply
the less polite way to put it would be that Peter Thiel is balls-deep in all kinds of dark-money republican activism and would really prefer to keep Russian propaganda all over facebook because it's advantageous for his tax rates.
[+] [-] ladyattis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyriee|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draw_down|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] genS3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toiletfuneral|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Gusen|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aritmo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mindgam3|6 years ago|reply
Okay, so just to recap:
1. Thiel is the investor who made billions off of Facebook before becoming a high-profile Trump supporter.
2. Trump is the guy who became president thanks in no small part to misinformation campaigns at scale made possible by Facebook's ad platform.
3. Thiel is now one of the strongest voices arguing that Facebook should remain in the political misinformation-for-profit business.
I couldn't read the entire article due to paywall, but forgive me for having doubts that Thiel's convictions are based on a desire to do what's right for democracy.
[+] [-] nyolfen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s_y_n_t_a_x|6 years ago|reply
If you don't trust them with your data, why would you trust them with the truth.
Allow all ads and let the people decide for themselves.
But if you're on the side that is providing the fact-checkers, I see how you'd want your propaganda be stamped with an approval and your opponents facts be dismissed with a fake news label.
Censorship is a slippery slope guys...
We don't fact check polical ads on newspapers or TV ads. There is a reason for this. Jesus fucking Christ.
[+] [-] baddox|6 years ago|reply
Do you think Facebook should publish an ad that falsely claims that the date of an election has been changed?
[+] [-] rmobin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] didibus|6 years ago|reply
> Allow all ads and let the people decide for themselves.
I think that's an argument for banning targeted ads? In a way, you can think of targeted ads as a form of censorship. I can't see what someone else does.
I wonder if censorship can go both ways? You can censor the message, but you can also argue that the listener can be censored.
[+] [-] lern_too_spel|6 years ago|reply