
Peter Thiel at Center of Facebook’s Internal Divisions on Politics - JumpCrisscross
https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-at-center-of-facebooks-internal-divisions-on-politics-11576578601
======
imgabe
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.

~~~
jlwits
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).

~~~
WorldMaker
Not to mention that Facebook for some time also enabled resharing those micro-
targeted ads, which would then show those ads on friends/followers' newsfeed
_without_ the Sponsored Content notice, thus further blurring the lines
between what was "legitimately" viral content and what originated as micro-
targeted paid advertising.

------
NathanKP
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...

~~~
maxlamb
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

~~~
jonny_eh
The discussion isn't about Hulk Hogan v Gawker, it's Peter Thiel v Gawker, via
Hulk Hogan. Thiel funded Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, for personal revenge.

~~~
DuskStar
Personal revenge for outing him as gay while he was physically in Saudi
Arabia, IIRC. Which I'd consider to be only half a step down from a murder
attempt if it happened to me.

(Of course, I'm not a billionaire, so there's a far higher chance that I'd
actually end up dead in such a situation. But still)

~~~
blaser-waffle
It was a business meeting too -- great way of tanking that meeting.

But yeah, being gay in Iran or Saudi has serious consequences. Plus Gawker,
posing a progressive media outlet via organs like Jezebel, shouldn't be airing
anyone dirty laundry like that -- and then they did, repeatedly.

------
licebmi__at__
Well, it's not surprising for someone who's been vocally "skeptic" about
democracy to not care about one of it's deterrents; misinformation.

------
buboard
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

~~~
themagician
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.

~~~
malloreon
Except they own instagram too.

~~~
themagician
Instagram is no better. Maybe worse.

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/1Vt4h](http://archive.md/1Vt4h)

~~~
mrosett
Thanks

------
guelo
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.

------
rayiner
> “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.”

Friends. With Republicans. The horror.

~~~
paulmd
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.

~~~
squish78
What is "dark money"?

~~~
cavanasm
No, it has a pretty precise definition. It's money spent on political activism
that isn't publicly reported, typically through a specific category of non-
profit organization.

------
genS3
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

------
aritmo
Is he still active in politics as a Trump supporter?

------
mindgam3
> 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.

~~~
nyolfen
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.

~~~
mindgam3
> the totally insubstantiable claim that facebook ads got trump elected

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/22/a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/22/all-
the-ways-trumps-campaign-was-aided-by-facebook-ranked-by-importance/)

> the alternative is making facebook the gatekeeper of political truth

This argument is so played out. If it cared enough, or was forced to by
regulation, Facebook could deploy enough fact checkers to greatly reduce the
problem.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
> forced to by regulation

So now you want the government to tell Facebook what is truthful?

Government approved media is propaganda.

Do you not see how flawed this is!?

The argument is not played out. I do NOT want Facebook telling me what is the
truth. Period.

If you want to limit their targeting tools for political ads, that's an okay
route for me.

------
s_y_n_t_a_x
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.

~~~
rmobin
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.

~~~
raisedbyninjas
Maybe they shouldn't be in the political ad business if it's too hard to do it
safely. Imagine if we said the same about driving cars or sale of high
explosives or thwarting counterfeit cash.

