
Facebook is running anti-vax ads, despite its ban on vaccine misinformation - thinkcontext
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/facebook-running-anti-vax-ads-despite-ban-anti
======
munk-a
This, along with political ads, is a pretty amazingly good example of how
facebook was wrong - they can't deliver advertising to customers at higher
efficacy and lower cost than traditional media... what they can do is fail to
properly vet ads for cheaper than traditional media spends vetting ads.

I feel like this problem should start the sounding of warning bells around the
efficiencies tech companies create. A lot of good value is created in tech,
but along with that value is the movement to accomplish a solution for most of
the problem for far less of a cost. If you can managed to eschew portions of
your product that are unimportant (creating a DB tuned to reading that does
reading really well and slows way down during writes) then you might have the
beginnings of a great business, but the portions of the feature set you're
eschewing need to actually be optional. Building a peer to peer trading
website without building in support for all those onerous requirements around
preventing human trafficking and other black market dealings isn't a solid
business - the government will shut you down and your product isn't
groundbreaking and paradigm shifting - it's half-assed.

I reeeeally strongly suspect that a lot of web advertisers are feeling the
pain now that HUD has started watching web advertisements for housing
discrimination, now that the impact of politcal ads is becoming accepted and
now that slimy businesses are exploiting FUD to push homeopathy... Preventing
these has always been a requirement in the field of marketing, and your
business isn't disruptive and edgy because it ignores them - it's living on
borrowed time until a huge lawsuit drives it out of business.

~~~
deweller
Just because they fail to properly vet ads for cheaper than traditional media
doesn't mean they can't still deliver advertising to customers at higher
efficacy and lower cost than traditional media.

The cost just might not be as low as they had hoped.

I'd like to see some tech innovation around peer to peer governance and
enforcement of rules. Government is going to struggle to keep up with the
sheer volume of advertising on the web. Asking a central authority to police
all of it is not a recipe for success. Can we incentivize consumers to enforce
ad regulations in a meaningful way? That might lead to a better advertising
world for all of us.

------
r00fus
Why are they allowed to profit from spreading misinformation without
consequence?

~~~
alanlovestea
On the flip side, do you want Facebook or any company to control what you can
or can not say?

~~~
brianwawok
Do I want regulations that would prevent things that are illegal to say on one
media form to apply to all? Sure. You can't just go buy a TV ad that says
"blue cars cause cancer", knowing that it will drive business away from a guy
you hate that makes blue cars. But I can go have that facebook ad up in 5
minutes.

As part of living in a society, I am happy to cede some freedoms for a better
world.

~~~
bduerst
FTC is supposed to enforce truth-in-advertising laws regardless of the medium
(television or online).

------
jp42
What are the incentives or driving force behind anti-vaxxers? I am amazed why
someone is putting money and efforts on anti-vaccination. Personally its hard
to believe it become a big thing without some sort incentives/driving force.

~~~
sebasmurphy
I feel like Companies like Goop and other "natural" health companies profit
from this stuff as a side-effect. Like who else could you market this type of
crap to.

[https://shop.goop.com/shop/products/rose-quartz-
bottle?taxon...](https://shop.goop.com/shop/products/rose-quartz-
bottle?taxon_id=1291&country=USA)

~~~
happytoexplain
Ironically, I've seen a lot of people (including firsthand) who consider
things like Goop to be "liberal" nonsense, yet consider vaccines dangerous
because of the conspiracy/general-distrust-of-experts angles.

------
daenz
Relevant information:

>"Facebook does not have a policy that bans advertising on the basis that it
expresses opposition to vaccines," a Facebook spokesperson said. "Our policy
is to ban ads containing vaccine misinformation."

The ad Buzzfeed thinks is in violation:

>One ad reads, “Is the vaccine the best option? And if not, what is?” Another
says, “Click below for a FREE guide for Pertussis which will include: Vaccine
Controversy.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. The ad doesn't contain misinformation, merely
opposition. Somehow I can't help but feel like we're sliding down the slippery
slope though.

~~~
eropple
_> The ad doesn't contain misinformation, merely opposition._

Can you show me a formulation of "vaccine opposition" that does not require
misinformation to be credible?

~~~
daenz
Sure: there's the idea of opposing vaccines because you want the absolute
option of bodily autonomy over what gets injected into your bloodstream.

~~~
colejohnson66
The thing about you deciding what goes into you is that it is harming other
people. Your rights stop once you harm others.

~~~
daenz
That wasn't the point I was making, please don't strawman me. The GP asked for
an argument against vaccination that didn't rely on misinformation.

