
Zuckerberg doubles down on Facebook political ads policy after Twitter ban - lando2319
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/468216-zuckerberg-doubles-down-on-facebook-political-ads-policy-after-twitter-ban
======
Traster
>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

It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of
'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising
on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite
the fact I have no money to pay him for them.

~~~
Lazare
I notice you don't address his actual point though.

If, let's say, a group advocating for the abolishment of asset forfeiture
wants to communicate their message, and the media is not covering it, it would
be natural for them to try paying for ads, and the obvious place to _put_ ads
are on social media, since that's where the eyeballs are (cf, the collapse of
the news media). If social media bans those ads then while the group clearly
still has free speech, they will have little way to meaningfully exercise it.

You might say - and I'd certainly agree - that the real problem is a world
where everyone is on Twitter and Facebook to the exclusion of all else, and
thus a world where 3-4 CEOs can unilaterally decide that nobody needs to hear
anything about asset forfeiture (or whatever). And yet, that's the world we're
in.

(You also don't seem to understand what "free speech" is. By your logic, a law
banning the purchase television ads for Democratic candidates - but allowing
the purchase of television ads for Republicans - would be okay, because after
all, those ads cost money, so it's not restricting the Democratic candidates
right to free speech. That's absurd, no?)

~~~
landryraccoon
I'm sorry, I don't follow.

If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media.
Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and
nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have
money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a
non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to
promote their voice.

I have very little concern that the opinions of those with large quantities of
money at their disposal are underrepresented in politics, or do not have the
ability to make their voices heard.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non
> sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to
> promote their voice.

What you're missing is that all viewpoints you'll ever see are intrinsically
those of someone with the money to promote their voice.

Suppose you have an idea in your head and you want to get it out there. The
first thing you have to do is express that idea. Write it down or create a
video etc. That takes time, which is an opportunity cost. If it takes you an
hour, that's an hour you couldn't spend working for money, which means that
somebody who has to spend that time working for money doesn't have the time to
express their idea.

On top of that, the more time you spend polishing your expression, the more
convincing you can make it, so right off the bat there is a direct
relationship between time/money and speech.

Then you need to get people to look at it. If all you do is write a document
that sits in a drawer in your house, nobody will ever see it. So you need to
spend more time distributing your idea, or get other people who are willing to
spend their time distributing it.

Political advertising is just paying a third party to do that for you. It
costs _less_ than hiring a staff of people to promote the idea "organically"
(otherwise it would be poor value for money and nobody would pay for it),
which means it enables people with _less_ money to get their message in front
of people.

~~~
pm90
I don't really get your point. What you're saying is that a good message takes
a lot of resources to communicate effectively. That is true regardless of
whether you can use social media to promote those messages.

Conversely, targeted advertisement lets you bombard people with certain
inclinations with ads that nudge them to behave in a certain way. That isn't
free speech, its targeted manipulation. The targeting is whats important here.
For selling goods and services, its fine. For selling leaders or tarnishing
leaders, its evil.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
After the decades learning that targeted advertising to sell goods and
services comes with a dramatic tracking and data gathering overreach, I'd like
to ban the lot. It's still targeted manipulation. Better to have no tracking
and no targeting.

Allow opt-in targeting by allowing classified ads, old-school newspaper and
Computer Shopper style. Otherwise I think it is now pretty clear the cost is
too high.

------
cj
Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on
Facebook?

The main issue I have with this is how Facebook strategically blends
advertisements (which is often political during election cycles) together with
organic non-sponsored content.

Anecdote: My 84 year old grandmother spends 1-2 hours per day scrolling
through Facebook's news feed. When I watch her do it, she pays ZERO attention
to why she's seeing a specific piece of content (to her, there's no difference
between a post that's labeled "Sponsored" versus an organic post from a family
member). In other words, for my grandmother, Facebook has not done an
effective job at informing her when she's viewing a paid advertisement vs.
organic non-sponsored content. This is a clear form of user manipulation that
needs to stop.

Even when I scroll through Facebook, I often don't notice the "Sponsored"
label on posts until after I've already read most of the post.

To me, the primary issue is that Facebook does not adequately differentiate
organic content from sponsored content.

At least when watching television, it's absolutely clear when you're watching
paid-for commercials - it's harder to manipulate someone's beliefs when they
know they're watching a commercial. But with Facebook, a huge percentage of
users don't know when they're interacting with an advertisement vs. organic
content - this is the problem that I think needs solving.

> Zuck: "Instead, I believe the better approach is to work to increase
> transparency. Ads on Facebook are already more transparent than anywhere
> else."

In what way is Facebook transparent? Do they mean they simply disclose
political ad spend? Or do they legitimately think they're doing a good job at
properly labeling paid-for content?

~~~
WhompingWindows
Why can't FB charge a minimal subscription fee? For 2-3 bucks a year, wouldn't
they keep the vast majority of users and simultaneously remove their
dependence on shadowy advertisement dollars?

~~~
ankit219
I did a back of the paper calculation as to how much fb would earn via me as a
user. I noticed a user like me spends about 15 mins a day on facebook and see
around 6 sponsored posts. Internally FB ads are all CPM based, at about $4-5
per CPM, no matter the optimization advertisers choose. In a year he would
have seen about 2000 impressions, and hence minimum price would be around $10
per year. (There are many users who spends a lot more time and hence the
revenue multiple will be higher)

But there is more revenue than just that. FB allows advertisers to reach
specific audiences, and even create lookalikes, so overall, there will be a
%age of the users seeing more ads than me, potentially personalized for them,
and average revenue per user would be higher.

~~~
s1artibartfast
I think your numbers are pretty far off if you look at Facebook financial
statements, and a more accurate cost would be around $200/yr for a daily user
[1]. US & Canada had 189 million daily users and a quarterly Ad revenue of
8.487 Billion dollars. That is $45 per user per quarter.

[1]
[https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3...](https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3/Q3-2019-Earnings-
Presentation.pdf)

~~~
ankit219
You might be right. I was replying to the parent comment which said facebook
should have a ad free subscription product at $2-3 per year. Just tried to say
that the Revenue per user is more than that.

Also, the numbers you posted include all the inventory - facebook news feed,
ads on the side right on desktop, instagram, messenger ads, stories ads,
instant articles, and even the ad network. According to facebook (read
somewhere) 70% of their ads are on the ad network.

------
nicpottier
I just watched The Great Hack, which I can't say is fantastic as a whole, but
does still raise some terrifying points of the power of targeted political ads
and how they are being weaponized. I really don't see any other choice but to
ban political ads entirely as Twitter is doing.

For those that haven't seen it, here's some backstory on one piece about the
Trinidad election: [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-
investigations/t...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-
investigations/they-were-planning-on-stealing-election-explosive-new-tapes-
reveal-cambridg/)

But basically, a political campaign was started around NOT voting as a form of
protest. And those were targeted to the opposing party etc..

It is one thing if political ads were just about informing the public about a
candidate, but we are far past that. This is a question about the legitimacy
of our democracy now.

Anybody have any bright ideas on how to apply pressure on Facebook to do the
same as Twitter? This feels to me like one of the more important questions of
our (immediate) time since it effects absolutely everything.

~~~
nicpottier
That's a long link, so the part in question. Note this is from a taped pitch
from the president of Cambridge Analytica, this isn't hearsay, it is from the
horse's mouth:

> Nix moved on to pitch his next case study – a youth mobilisation campaign.
> Again, all is not as it seems. “Trinidad is a very interesting case history
> of how we look at problems,” Nix said. “Trinidad's tiny – it's 1.3 million
> people – but almost exactly half the country are Indian and half the country
> are Black, Afro-Caribbean. And there are two main political parties, one for
> the Blacks and one for the Indians… when the Indians are in power the Blacks
> don't get anything, and vice-versa, you know – they screw each other. So we
> were working, I think for the third time in Trinidad, and we were working
> for the Indians, and we did a huge amount for research, and two really
> important things came out.

> “One was that all the youth, Indian and Afro-Caribbean, felt disenfranchised
> … And secondly, amongst the Indians the familial hierarchies were really
> strong. There was huge respect for their elders and their parents and their
> families, but not so for the Afro-Caribbeans. And that was enough
> information to inform the entire campaign.

> “We went to the client and said, we only want to do one thing, we want to
> run a campaign where we target the youth – all youth, all the Blacks and all
> the Indians – and we try and increase apathy. And they didn't really
> understand why… but they allowed us to do this campaign, and the campaign
> had to be non-political, because no one, the kids don’t care about politics.
> It had to be reactive, because they’re lazy; inclusive of all ethnicities;
> bottom-up. It had to be exciting, because kids want to do something fun.

> “We came up with this campaign which was all about ‘Be part of the gang, do
> something cool, be part of a movement.’ And it was called the ‘Do So’
> campaign… A3 posters. And graffiti, yellow paint, you know, we cut stencils
> with the jigsaw… And we'd give these to kids, and they'd get in their cars
> at night, you know, just make a drawing, get in the car, and race around the
> country putting up these posters and getting chased by the police and all
> their friends were doing it, and it was fucking brilliant fun…

> “Do So. Don't vote. Don't be involved in politics. It's like a sign of
> resistance against – not government, against politics. And voting. And very
> soon they're making their own YouTube videos. This is the prime minister’s
> house that's being graffitied! … It was carnage.

> “And the reason why this was such a good strategy is because we knew, and we
> really really knew, that when it came to voting, all the Afro-Caribbean kids
> wouldn't vote, because they ‘Do So’. But all the Indian kids would do what
> their parents told them to do, which is go out and vote. And so all the
> Indians went out and voted, and the difference on the 18-35-year-old turnout
> is like 40%, and that swung the election by about 6% – which is all we
> needed!”

~~~
knzhou
You have to keep in mind that you're not listening to a journalistic expose of
the Trinidad election -- you are listening to a sales pitch from Cambridge
Analytica, which has all the motivation to vastly exaggerate their influence.
I've been unable to find any reference to this "Do So" campaign anywhere
except for Cambridge Analytica bragging about it. Furthermore as described
this was an old-fashioned campaign, which had more to do with physical
materials handed out than social media ads.

The same caveats went for all the "psychological targeting" they bragged about
a few years ago; there is precious little evidence that it is better than
targeting roughly by political party, which we've had for decades. For its
power, we only have their word to go on.

~~~
nicpottier
I would say the burden of truth is on you, not me. We have it from them that
they did this, the documentary does indeed have images from the campaign. Just
because there isn't a ton of internet content you can search from your seat
doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Yes, this was primarily a physical campaign, but it drives home the point of
how these people work. And how they DID work in 2016 as well with respect to
targeted advertising on Facebook.

Watch the movie if you haven't, this stuff was well researched by various
reporters. It isn't perfect but it certainly shows that what we have now is
not tenable if we want to maintain a democracy.

------
chrischen
> "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.

Another tool in the arsenal of the rich and powerful to give them more of a
voice than the average person, is another way to look at it.

Facebook are profiting from both sides. They’re a news site that’s
simultaneously FOX News and MSNBC all at once. But I still have to agree with
Zuckerberg on this: enforcing misinformation shouldn’t be left to a private
company.

~~~
WhompingWindows
Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year
(or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely?
That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political
shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc.

I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their
network/contacts that FB provides.

~~~
cj
$3 isn't enough. It would need to be well above $30/yr.

Average revenue per user in the US/Canada is $26.76 [0] per user per year.
Globally, the average is over $6.

I'd wager a bet that the ARPU for users willing to pay $30/yr for no ads is
even greater than $27 - likely above $100 - because the only people who would
pay extra to remove ads are people with disposable income (which are usually
the exact people advertisers want to target when trying to sell stuff).

[0] [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-
earnings-q4-2017-ar...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-
earnings-q4-2017-arpu.html)

~~~
s1artibartfast
A more accurate cost would be around $200/yr for a daily user [1]. US & Canada
had 189 million daily users and a quarterly Ad revenue of 8.487 Billion
dollars. That is $45 per user per quarter. [1]
[https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3...](https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3..).

------
cabaalis
The primary problem is that it's not illegal for politicians to lie to the
electorate. Without solving that problem, we will always have sub-par
leadership and questions about what is or is not a valid advertisement.

In official capacity (under oath) it's illegal for us to lie to them. In their
official capacity (under oath of office) they get to lie all day long,
straight through their teeth. CEOs can't defraud their shareholders, but
politicians can do so every day of their lives.

~~~
nidificate
Often times in politics, what is a "lie" is more a matter of opinion rather
than fact. Who gets to be the arbiter of truth?

~~~
ep103
If only we had some sort of system, where individuals could be sued for making
damaging statements. Maybe each side could present their case, and a jury of
their peers could be the ultimate deciders.

~~~
Aperocky
That system certainly doesn't sound like facebook to me.

------
readams
We simultaneously fear the power of Facebook but then demand they become the
final arbiter of the truth, censoring even the speech of our political
leaders.

Why did we think this was a good idea again? Ask China their opinion on the
value of being the one to decide what is true.

~~~
jonbronson
Demanding even the slightest level of accountability for blatantly misleading
or false information does not make them the final arbiter. It's not a binary
choice of absolute determination vs completely hands off.

~~~
boreas
There are many choices in the policy space, but the decision about how to
treat an individual advertisement is essentially binary. The line between
truth and falsehood must lie somewhere, and I can guarantee you that different
political factions will have very different ideas about what should lie on
either side of that line.

------
samatman
Facebook, the platform, is in trouble.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is of the 2020 election season, or what
Facebook does during it. They will be blamed for it.

Buying Instagram and Whatsapp was farsighted, Facebook the company can cruise
for awhile on those properties. The main site is bound to fall out of fashion,
and soon.

Can't be soon enough for my taste.

~~~
dcchambers
Sadly many groups I am a part of have moved to facebook and have no interest
in moving off of the platform.

To be honest I think it's pretty terrible as a group platform. No proper
discussion threads and it's hard to find stuff. But people don't have to pay
to host a website/forum and there's virtually no barrier to join since most
people have an account on facebook.com.

The only reason I still use facebook is for these groups.

~~~
geerlingguy
I've also found that my kids' school sometimes _only_ sends out notifications
or surveys via Facebook, even though they have two other specific systems they
pay for that are specifically made for parent/school communications.

~~~
inscionent
A pubic school? This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

~~~
orky56
Go on. How so?

~~~
atonse
The most obvious one to me is violations of FERPA rules and posting private
information/pictures of my kids in a public forum.

~~~
frankacter
1) OP stated they were "notifications and polls", neither of which would
contain private information or pictures.

2) You make the assumption that the school does not have a private / protected
group that is used for verifying group members and protecting content from
non-members.

~~~
atonse
I do make that assumption because your average staff member that would manage
something like that, would do the easy path of default settings (which are
probably public).

------
dtwest
Most people saw what Twitter did and thought, Facebook is probably under some
pressure to do the same.

Mark Zuckerburg saw it and thought, we now have a monopoly on social media
based political advertising! $$$

~~~
quarkral
I don't think Twitter actually hade much political advertising at all before
tbh. It's like Bing traffic compared to Google.

~~~
alwayseasy
Under $3M per quarter according to their CFO.

------
haolez
I think Zuck's statement makes more sense than Jack's, where Jack said that
"democracy might break if we allow those ads" (not with these exact words).
It's weird to see a CEO making a statement like that, like if it was his role
to protect democracy. I think Zuck sounded more professional and centered in
this case.

~~~
WhompingWindows
How is it NOT his role to protect democracy? Democracy thrives on freedom of
information, and with an informed populace. If the democracy's populace is
gaining massive quantities of information from Twitter, isn't Jack Dorsey then
directly involved in being an arbiter of democracy? For better or worse, isn't
it factually true that these tech-info companies are directly woven into the
fabric of our democracy?

~~~
haolez
I was just talking about their statements, but regarding the argument, isn't
this an arrogant position to take? You are basically saying that the majority
of the population is not smart enough to detect fake news by themselves, and
that a smaller group of smart individuals (you included) are better poised to
protect "the people" and control what they should and should not be exposed
to.

Sounds a little dystopian and authoritarian to me as well. Fair democracy is
hard.

~~~
sp332
There's a difference between arrogance and actually having a lot of power.
Zuckerberg is dodging accountability and pretending FB isn't responsible for
the ads it's running. And it doesn't have to be a majority - the last election
was decided by a margin of 0.09% of all votes cast, and ad platforms let
advertisers target people pretty finely.

~~~
haolez
What's your proposed solution?

~~~
sp332
My ideal would be for some external regulator to police political ads, like
the FEC already does to some extent. The policies would be made in public. The
regulator would work with advertising platforms to set and enforce guidelines.

Another option which would avoid some of the problems is to limit how tightly
a political ad could be targeted. If misinformation is included in an ad,
everyone should be able to see it and make a judgement. Targeting the most
vulnerable people would not be an option.

I think if a platform doesn't know whether an ad is true or not - any kind of
ad - they should be very hesitant to run the ad. I think Twitter's decision to
just not run political ads makes sense because it's hard for a private company
to make policies in public. Even if they are really careful, there will always
be some suspicion that they are favoring the highest bidder or Jack's
favorite.

~~~
haolez
I mostly agree. Twitter is a private company and is free to do what they want.
What I don’t agree is the CEO making the argument that he is protecting
democracy. He is protecting his business.

I strongly agree that adding more information to the system (like making ads
metadata open) is good for the society as a whole and might lead to better
decisions, as in decisions supported by better data.

I don’t agree with the regulator idea, though. How do we make this regulator
strong enough to resist corruption? It’s a tough job.

------
tathougies
Why is his policy so diffficult for people to swallow? He has made a standard
rule without room for arbitrary censorship and everyone is upset. If you can
pay, you can publish on Facebook. This is a good thing. Fairness is important
when it comes to monopolies offering services.

~~~
colejohnson66
People are upset because he’s allowing ads that flat out _lie_ simply because
they’re a political ad. If the some Democratic nominee put out an ad saying
“Trump reverses decision to ban LGBTQ+ from the military,” despite it being
blatantly false (there’s no gray truth in that), they would allow it.

This rule means I could go form a PAC and post a ridiculous ad like “Voting
for Biden will give you AIDS.” That has no basis in reality, yet from
Zuckerberg’s words, it sounds like they would allow it.

~~~
tathougies
Good! That's fantastic. Some people believe those things. It's not just your
voice and those of people like you that should be heard in a democracy. No one
in any country has sole authority to determine 'fact'. If they did, we should
just appoint them to be king, call them 'god', and be done with the whole
government thing.

~~~
colejohnson66
The courts have already upheld the FTC’s authority many times in regards to
false and deceptive advertising. I can’t legally make an ad that says
“Vaccines cause autism; Buy homeopathic natural remedies!” Why is political
advertising any different? Because then someone is the arbitrator of truth?
The FTC does that already, just not with politics.

------
bhupy
The freedom of advocacy is inseparable from the freedom of speech. It costs
money to print pamphlets, buy air time, pay people to stand on the corner,
conduct opinion polls, etc.

Every political movement in history has consisted of forming groups,
contacting potential allies, soliciting donations from them, then spending
that money on pamphlets, TV, radio ads, etc. That's freedom at work. The
medium has now shifted away from pamphlets, TV, and radio, towards the
Internet and social media.

If paid advertisements are not free speech, then the concept of free speech
would cease to exist beyond street corner rants.

~~~
orky56
With income inequality rising, the revolving door between public/private
sector, and lobbying, the power of the citizenry compared to the wealthy
individuals is becoming smaller. An individual can make a single post and get
a single like that is shown within a closed network while a dollar can do the
same on these networks. The only place left for a citizen to make a difference
is at the voting booth with their one powerful vote. However the influence on
that voter is guided through means the voter is not aware of.

------
SolaceQuantum
I'm mostly confused as to what sorts of free speech is being violated by not
using ads? Parties can post on their facebook pages and comment the same way
users can. Isn't that equal speech? What's the dimension I'm missing?

~~~
orky56
Through ads, political parties don't necessarily have to use true statements.
In addition, they can target specific groups of users based on demographics
and other attributes Facebook provides. The issue is that regular users who
post have a higher burden of truth than someone who pays to play as a
political figure.

------
sp332
On Twitter it's at least _possible_ for candidates or organizations to have a
huge reach without paying money. On Facebook, they limit your reach so that
even people who explicitly follow your page don't see your updates in their
timeline unless you pay up.

~~~
nkkollaw
There are always bots...

------
ptah
> "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.

translation: I simply cannot say no to the amount of money made from political
ads

~~~
dominotw
wondering why is it only 0.5% for twitter while much higher for FB ?

------
yedava
Regarding advocacy groups, a few years ago, it was quite easy to setup a page
on Facebook, build an audience and spread your message organically. But then
Facebook severely limited the content from liked pages that was showing up in
your feed. So the page admins had no choice but to buy ads in order for their
content to show up in their subscribers feed.

So if Facebook cared more about free speech than increasing profits, they'd go
back to the older model where someone with no money, but plenty of time to
volunteer, could build a sizeable audience.

It's not bad to want a good return on your investment, but to couch that in a
feel-good pitch for free speech just seems wrong.

------
adam12
Just ban all political ads.

~~~
mc32
So should be only left with live face to face stump speeches?

~~~
gorgoiler
It is possible for the state to ensure that political parties get media
airtime without having to buy ads.

Canada, Ireland, and the UK all do this with _Party Political Broadcasts_ :

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_political_broadcast)

~~~
rjsw
The UK uses think tanks to get around media restrictions on political
advertising. They put out press releases that get reported as "news".

------
TearsInTheRain
I wonder if all of this fervor against political ads would have happened if
Clinton was elected.

------
tyfon
Paid political ads gives the ones with the most money an unfair advantage it's
as simple as that.

I'm all for the actions of twitter in this case but it really should be
mandated by law.

------
DevKoala
I agree with Zuckerberg on this one; improving transparency and policing the
platform is the solution. Twitter doesn't have the answer for "what is a
political ad" and I believe soon enough they will run into issues that will
put in evidence their lack of foresight.

------
NullPrefix
I wonder if it is okay to run ads about Zuck's presidential campaign. I know
that he is not running, but still, somebody can put ads about it.

~~~
jonlucc
Only if you're a currently serving politician or a candidate. Also, only as
long as Facebook believes that your candidacy is for the right reasons, else
they'll still apply the rules to you.

------
buboard
Suppose you want to campaign to get Facebook to ban political ads. Should you
be able to pay to promote it or not?

------
justin66
Would anyone actually _miss_ having their social network of choice inundating
then with political ads?

~~~
SiempreViernes
Now now, it's not like advertisement in general is particularly wanted so it's
_deeply_ unfair to single out a simple global tech giant with such an
insidious question!

------
FillardMillmore
I think the crux of the question raised here is: "Is there anything wrong,
ethically or legally, with a social media site accepting payments in exchange
for algorithmically amplifying the amount of people that see the paid-for
content? Does the answer to this question depend on the veracity of the
information presented in the content? If so, does Facebook have some sort of
obligation to ensure that paid-for content is substantiated by facts and
evidence?"

~~~
_cairn
Agree wholeheartedly with how you posed the question, I would like to expand:

Should Adult (xxx) sites be held accountable for ads for male enlargement
pills/snake oils? I personally don't think so. Is the answer to this problem
to teach our population that blindly accepting what you read is safe (you can
trust information posted on social media/public internet sites as fact) OR do
we instead teach our citizens to filter information analytically and do
research the way you are taught to in university for example?

Personally I think the former option is an intractable problem. Why try to
make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of just teaching
them how to think critically?

~~~
FillardMillmore
> Why try to make it safe for your population NOT to have to think instead of
> just teaching them how to think critically?

Hmmm...a question like that is essentially opening up the gates for
speculation - the kind of speculation that may not paint the government (the
body that seems to be pushing for, as you say, "trustworthy information") in
the most benevolent light.

I agree with the essence of what you're getting at - it's the old biblical
trope of giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish. But I could think of
many possible benefits (for a government) in having a population with a
reduced ability or incentive to be analytical and think critically. To be
fair, I can think of many possible costs as well - I don't know whether one
would outweigh the other.

------
CaptainZapp
_" 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,"_

Well, Mr. Zuckerberg; I don't think this explains, let alone justifies your
policy of allowing outright lies in political ads without any pushback.

Whenever you think this company cannot sink any lower you're always in for a
massive surprise and disappointment.

------
toss1
I'd be OK with Zuck's approach, IFF it were implemented with full
transparency.

I define full transparency as providing a full, near-real-time, public record
of EVERY advert run, including (but not limited to): who paid for it & in what
currency, all targeting parameters, and count of views.

This would allow any person, public interest group, competitor, or other
interested party to be informed and respond as they saw appropriate.

This would also make FB adverts more like major media adverts, where anyone
can (with a little bit of work) see exactly who is running what for & against
their position.

As FB is currently opaque, it is a magnet for manipulators seeking the holy
grail of adverts, micro-targeted at the exact people who will respond, highly
effective at changing behavior, and completely unnoticed by the opposition. FB
may see this as attracting revenue, but the transparent option described above
will likely generate more with the likely cycles of responses to adverts,
counter-responses, etc.

False claims, wholly misleading edits? Fine, just as long as everyone can see
who's spreading that crap, and to whom, and can respond.

------
pjspycha
I don't see a problem with having advertisers require to have references or
sources to any quotes or facts they represent. The sources would have to be
credible and shown in context (no sound bites) and perhaps view-able by the
users easily. Facebook or a third-party should be required to make sure the
sources look credible and all reported facts or quotes have sources attached.
Such a system would put most of the leg work on the advertisers and make the
process easier to administer.

I have no idea if Facebook already does any of this, but from their policy
about fact checking, they do not require any political ads to go through their
third party fact-check. Otherwise the third-party fact checker appears to do
all the research themselves or they may reach out to the advertisers for more
information.

[https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722?ref=...](https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722?ref=MisinfomrationPolicyPage)

------
20191031
I work on a presidential campaign on the digital side.

1 - If you take away FB advertising, then you reduce political upward mobility
of many lesser known candidates.

2 - FOX, CNN, MSNBC and others will have an unfair advantage to promote an
insider candidate or a candidate the bosses at these networks want to help
promote.

If you're okay with the above outcome, then push to end FB advertising. I can
tell you from the inside, FB is tremendously important in giving smaller and
lesser candidates a fighting chance against those backed by big money,
establishment and insiders.

I'm even curious if AOC herself would have been able to prevail without FB
advertising.

Even something small as promoting an event like a town hall, greatly benefits
the smaller candidates, IMO.

As for twitter advertising, it wasn't helpful for us and it only constitutes a
small fraction of "digital". If you look at the campaign spending data across
you'll see a similar trend. So it's an easier decision for twitter.

------
mattnewton
The real problem for me is the way political ads on social media (and on the
web in general) can effectively undermine FEC attribution rules. Between
direct targeting with ads that run for short periods, and promoted posts of
new accounts, there is basically no way for existing regulators to enforce
attribution to a PAC or candidate, so outright lies and shady adverts fly
under the radar with even less consequences than in the television or print
media. The debate here has to be about steps they can take to help the FEC
enforce it's rules I think, not about banning it altogether.

It feels like a false dichotomy, especially when freedom of speech is invoked.

We don't talk about freedom of speech for drug companies when we require a
side effects disclaimer at the end of a pharmacutical ad - it feels
disingenuous to me to talk about it here too when we should be talking about
enforcing the FEC's attribution guidelines.

~~~
davinic
I think this could be solved by disallowing targeted political ads at any
micro level. Allow campaigns to target metro areas and very broad demo groups
much like TV does.

~~~
mattnewton
Lots of potential solutions here (and potential implementation problems with
enforcement), but afaict nobody is even talking about it, they are argueing
over a simple black and white ban.

------
stjohnswarts
Zuck, it's a private company, you don't owe anyone a "voice" especially fake
political ads. Just shut it all down if you don't want to fact check. it's all
less than 1% of your ad revenue. Be the good guy for once instead of the
mocked automaton everyone thinks you are.

------
LanceH
The fundamental problem is that one party thinks the people voting for the
other party could only possibly do so if they were tricked. This attitude
alone will get some people to vote against you.

The government elite, of course, see through these shenanigans and are just
out to protect people from voting wrongly.

------
ineedasername
I wonder if there might be a middle path where only ads directly from the
campaign are allowed. It wouldn't necessarily resolve the "is it telling the
truth" issue, but it would curtail some of the more extreme black propaganda &
dark money ads.

~~~
rhizome
We could probably look back to when the laws were passed about identifying the
source of broadcast and print ads, as well as "...and I approve this message"
in broadcast ads. I'm sure there was some controversy, or at least discussion,
that could be reflected upon in the current fight. Perhaps the whole history
of fights in campaign finance reform applies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook has already done this.

------
sjwright
We could solve this with just a few simple requirements for online political
advertising. Here's some I came up with in the past few minutes—rough ideas
but let's see how they play out.

• Require all advertisements to be published N days in advance on a public
noticeboard with full details of every aspect of the advertisement—audience,
budget, funding entity.

• Do not allow targeting in any political advertising other than to narrow
adverts to the geography of the candidate or issue—e.g. ads for a
congressperson to their congressional district.

• Require the business unit handling political advertising to have strict
isolation from the rest of the company. Maybe require it to be an independent
entity.

~~~
slim
the second point still gives too much power to facebook

~~~
sjwright
Sure, but we can't solve for Facebook's market dominance.

------
gandutraveler
I'm not a fan of facebook but lately I'm seeing a lot of attacks on fb. Some
are valid and some are outrageous. The problem of misinformation has existed
for ages and if fb stops then something else will replace it. I don't use fb
anymore but still see fake news/ads all over the internet.

If we seriously need to fix this then it should be enforced by a law which
applies to every media/news organization.

~~~
sobani
Doesn't mean Facebook should actively try to make the problem worse.

Luckily Twitter didn't follow the reasoning that as long as it's not illegal,
it's OK.

------
brownkonas
More broadly, Congress has failed to act with respect to campaign finance
reform. Twitter's response gives me (some) hope that there could be a grass
roots, free market reform of sorts.

Fundraising becomes slightly less important if you can't spend the money
online. Not sure of the overall effect, as TV providers are unlikely to turn
away the lucrative ad spend.

~~~
sitkack
The humans need to come to terms with how we communicate facts and opinions.
This started in the modern age with Bernays [1] in 1928.

I'd like to have an ISO9001 traceable, encrypted log of all the ads shown to
me. Every pixel that was placed on a screen meant to change my mind. And it
should be traceable all the way back to the mine the ore was dug from.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_\(book\))

------
cs702
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his income depends
on his not understanding it." \- Uptown Sinclair

Source: [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-
ge...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-
understand-something)

------
ataluttasgiran
Political ads are not a problem. Targeted political ads are the real problem.
I think all targeted ads are the real problem.

~~~
tathougies
I actually think you're right and if any regulation is to be made, this seems
the easiest and most non intrusive while still offering all candidates a level
playing field.

------
v4dok
I am starting to think that restricting the number of people you can
follow/add as friends to a number that would actually be possible to follow
without specialized algorithm might be a good idea.

As long as there is such informational overload, there is no escaping from
having algorithms sort things for you

------
hinkley
I’ve had several occasions where a coworker in a meeting said words to the
effect of “if someone offers us money we’re gonna take it.”

Blurting out, “so you’re a whore then” in a staff meeting? Not okay. So I just
stared.

If I could stand to look at Zuck I’d be staring right now.

~~~
dredmorbius
I once remarked to an editor (reporter) for a tech news site (appearing
occasionally on HN) that a specific channel there listed itself as
specifically sponsored.

Their response: I'm glad to hear we're <doing it for money> and not <giving it
away for free>.

(Using words beginning with 'W' and 'S' respectively for each concept.)

~~~
hinkley
I have told several coworkers in private that if money was all they were
interested in, that there are more lucrative fields.

I was referred for a CtH position at a small company years ago where they
turned out to be, to quote the old CIA line, looking for a certain moral
flexibility. I declined to convert, and I also don't accept referrals from
that person anymore.

I was not at all surprised to see a couple of those people end up at an online
gambling company in my neighborhood a few years later. And relieved they
didn't seem to recognize me.

I keep hearing there are people who went into CS entirely for the money. I
have deluded myself that I hadn't met many of them. But you encounter a bunch
of them in one place and it's pretty hard to ignore.

------
xwowsersx
As best I can tell, a lot of the arguments here are something along the lines
of (trying to steel man): letting politicians pay for ads in order to increase
their reach reduces the competition to a question of who has the most money
and gives an outsized voice to them, leaving the politicians with less money
unable to compete. So in order to ensure a vibrant and fair democratic process
and political debate, we shouldn't allow politicians to buy ads on social
media platforms. (If I've misrepresented the basic argument, please correct
me.)

But the thing is that the whole premise of free speech is the belief that
sunlight is best disinfectant for bad ideas. We have this belief (whether
warranted or not, though I'd argue it is) that _utlimately_ we will arrive at
the good ideas and reject the bad ideas through public discourse. In other
words, we have faith, from a holistic standpoint, that the polity will decide
issues based on the substance of the ideas presented to them in the political
arena (I understand well that this isn't the case in specific instances nor in
every period of time, but it's still the belief broadly speaking). That being
the case, increased reach - where reach simply = number of eyeballs you shove
your message in front of - doesn't mean anything per se. The people who
participate in the democratic process and public discourse still must sift
through the ideas to determine which are good and which are bad.

Maybe the counterargument to my point is "well, yes, we do believe that ideas
are ultimately what win out, but if the candidates with less money cannot
reach an audience, then you never get to a debate in the first place."

I guess I do hear that argument and I'm unsure.

I think where this gets complicated is when you start to think not just in
terms of hard cash and spending on political ads. What about when media
outlets and other organizations are dedicated, for whatever reason, to a
certain candidate. For example, when TYT clearly favors a candidate and spends
an entire election season praising them, etc - should that be allowed? In some
ways those are resources being used as well to increase the reach of a
candidate. It's time, money, staff, resources, etc. It seems to me that it
just gets very dicey when you look at things just in terms of cash. You end up
having to effectively try to centralize the whole process and make sure that
everyone's reach is exactly even, which just isn't possible without massive
government intervention and coercion and flagrant violations of free speech. I
just don't see how this works out well in the end.

~~~
dredmorbius
Much of the "sunlight" defence points back to John Stuart Mill. Mill's
argument has been subtly distorted over the years.

I strongly recommend Jill Gordon's paper "John Stuart Mill and the
'Marketplace of Ideas'" (1997), which explores Mill's views and the history of
their use, in depth:

[https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_1...](https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_1997_0023_0002_0235_0250)

(Paywalled, though available via Sci-Hub / Library Genesis.)

[https://philpapers.org/rec/GORJSM](https://philpapers.org/rec/GORJSM)

~~~
xwowsersx
Will check it out, thanks for the suggestion.

------
jmull
Lying used to be wrong.

Now, apparently, many are convinced it is wrong to have any barriers to lying.

The con men have certainly gotten the upper hand. I suppose if we fall for
this obvious and absurd BS we deserve the world we get (collectively).

------
jaimex2
Fair enough. If they want political advertising on Facebook to stop just ban
the practice of political advertising.

I don't know why we expect any company to self regulate when an action hurts
its interests.

------
mwsfc
My take? This is really a pretty simple equation for FB. Politcal ads = good
business opportunity ....perhaps essential.

Since FB tends to be a self-reinforcing echo chamber on both ends of the
political spectrum, political ads will keep users engaged with the platform.
For a variety of reasons interest in the 2020 campaign is likely to be sky
high so allowing the ads should keeps FB's DAU's & MAU's in the preferred
direction. Not allowing the ads could in-turn adversely affect those metrics
and subsequently pull down ALL of their advertising rates. Freedom of Speech
rational of allowing adds? (scoff, scoff, snort, outburst of laughter.....)

~~~
colejohnson66
It sounds like you’re saying that because Facebook wants more money, they can
do what they want. No. They shouldn’t get a free pass simply because it
maximizes profit.

Slight tangent: Regulation is a thing because businesses have been shown to
not self regulate when its in their best interest not to. A corporation
maximizing profits could be a good thing _for consumers_ , but it could also
be bad. And when it’s bad, that’s when regulation is supposed to come in.

~~~
mwsfc
No, I never said Facebook is justified to do whatever they want because of
their desire to reap more profits. Slight tangent: I don't disagree with your
comments about regulation. Back to my earlier point, FB stands to lose more if
they don't run political ads so expecting them to change their position in
light Twitter's recent announcement is just not going to happen. Cloaking
their position as promoting Freedom of Speech is complete rubbish.

------
klyrs
A true win for free speech. Not "free as in beer" but "free as in if you're
rich enough to pay more than the competition, that's your price"

------
psds2
Someone just needs to start a dark money PAC promoting the NAMBLA agenda,
surely they have a candidate in a race somewhere. Fill Facebook with these
ads.

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/facebook-
polit...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/facebook-political-
criticism.html)

> This week, another critic emerged: Adriel Hampton, a marketer and
> progressive activist in San Francisco, who on Monday announced his intention
> to run for governor of California in protest of the policy, posting fake ads
> to prove his point.

> Facebook has since said that it won’t allow Mr. Hampton to take advantage of
> its lax approach to political speech despite his candidacy, and he says he
> is exploring his legal options.

The rules are enforced if and when they want to, completely arbitrarily.

------
jinushaun
This is why Zuck doesn’t understand Instagram and Tik Tok. Politics and news
articles is what killed Facebook for the new generation.

------
undefined3840
I don’t know how anyone can buy the free speech argument from Facebook when
they are extremely strict on any display of adult nudity...

------
mikelyons
This whole thing is one huge advocacy to remove money from politics in every
way we can.

If money is speech, only the rich are heard!

------
ping_pong
He still hasn't learned despite years of being CEO. It's frankly stupid of him
to have responded.

You don't dig in your heels because that attracts the media attention, like a
shark to a drop of blood. You say "This is something we're going to look at
and evaluate closely." And then wait until the news gets bored of it. And then
quietly release that you won't because of several reasons.

------
12thwonder
freedom to express one's opinion is different from spreading disinformation
(e.g. incorrect election dates) to manipulate public, and the latter should be
minimized somehow someway. i would like to know if you disagree and why.

------
simion314
I want to ask the "Free speech" defenders on this thread, if the political ads
are properly labeled and FB offers me a switch to turn them all off would it
make you happy?

~~~
dredmorbius
Keep in mind that a critical element of political (and in broader scope, _all_
) advertising, is that its effects are not simply limited to the direct
recipient. Political advertising literally shapes representation and policy.

This is even more the case for narrowly targeted, and particularly negative /
dissuading advertising. A chief tool and complaint in recent years has been of
suppressing voter turnout, at times through issue advertising, but also
specifically by spreading disinformation about candidates, voting processes,
locations, times, and requirements.

Simply disabling advertising for a narrow range of users capable and motivated
to block ads does not protect against the social consequences of such
activities.

That's from someone who's not a free-speech absolutist.

------
resters
The real issue with FB and Twitter is the news feed algorithms, not the paid
content.

The inciting incident that gave rise to the concerns is simply that Trump won.
Only a tiny fraction of the reach that Trump obtained via FB and Twitter was
paid advertising.

Most of the reach that benefitted Trump was simply the algorithm amplifying
journalistic stories (mostly negative) that allowed Trump to dog whistle
effectively.

Imagine someone with 800 FB friends who shares an article from, the NYT or
Huffpost that is harshly critical of Trump for saying something that comes
across as racist. There are three broad categories to characterize those who
see the shared content:

a) people who are in the target audience of the article, who dislike Trump,
who expected him to be racist, and who consider the article further proof (and
vindication) of their view

b) people who read the coverage and find it unfair to Trump, even if they
agree with the gist.

c) people who actually agree with the racist view Trump is alleged to have
expressed.

If the user sharing the article has 800 friends, most are probably in group a,
but Trump benefits from any friends the user has who are in groups b or c. To
them, the article reinforces their support for Trump or their view that the
coverage was unfair.

For those who view the coverage as unfair, a steady stream of similarly
unfair-seeming articles makes them effectively immune to negative press about
Trump. In 2019 many of Trump's supporters are in this group. When Trump
describes "fake news" he is appealing to this group. The reach that benefits
Trump may be 100 of the 800 friends, and it cost Trump's campaign nothing.
Trump triggered these kinds of signaling cascades many, many times during the
2016 campaign.

Sadly, the biggest problem is reporting that is not journalism but in-group
focused entertainment writing. Many of the "most shared" articles from major
papers are not thorough, in-depth stories, they are light on journalism and
heavy on in-group signaling. It is this kind of article that helps Trump the
most, for the aforementioned reasons.

These are also the kinds of articles that get the most clicks and generate the
most revenue for the paper.

------
dredmorbius
Money doesn't talk, it swears.

\-- Bob Dylan

------
nswest23
can we all just stop using fb? Then no one will advertise there.

------
asah
Adblock facebook ?

~~~
dredmorbius
Not sufficient.

See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21413532](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21413532)

------
SuperSandro2000
Fool

------
gorgoiler
Facebook could provide a quota of free advertising to political parties, and
not allow them to buy any more outside their quota. This would be akin to
government provided airtime (“Party Political Broadcasts”) as done in Canada,
UK and Ireland.

I’ve always felt nervous about the role of money in politics and removing the
requirement for massive ad-spend budgets might bring us closer to a more moral
democracy, and away from pay-to-play.

~~~
WhompingWindows
What about all the "independent" "non-affiliated" groups who are absolutely
tied to a political party? How do you adjudicate those edge cases? It's the
edge cases, IMO, that are the real bear here.

~~~
gorgoiler
If they are absolutely tied to a political party, then they would count
towards the quota. If they claim not to have a link then it becomes Facebook’s
job to determine if there is one, which seems a lot more tractable than
determining if a fact is true or false.

Easy at least when the message is “don’t vote for Bob!”, than when it is “we
don’t see any harm in GMO wheat”. Unattributed attack ads are pretty obvious
but it’s harder to tie issue ads to the party they benefit.

