
Facebook backtracks after removing Warren ads calling for Facebook breakup - edward
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/11/facebook-removes-elizabeth-warren-ads-1216757
======
potatofarmer45
This is smart politics. Rather than simply telling people FB is a monopoly,
she runs a limited experiment that had it been left alone, would have limited
effect since the budget was so small ($100). Now this puts FB in a bind. If
they really are a middleman for content, then these ads don't violate any laws
and shouldn't be blocked. However, FB as a company with a product should block
it just like coffee shop wouldn't allow a banner on the wall saying "better
coffee down the street".

This sort of overreaction to a small calculated provocation just proves the
point that FB is a company first, platform second. This was obvious already to
many people, but now there's a clear illustration that'll make it harder for
FB to simply say they are a neutral platform.

~~~
chicob
I agree this is smart, because it's a win-win for Warren: either the ad
remains online and it does its work, or it gets taken down and that's a forced
Streisand.

But I don't think this is an overreaction, specially because this isn't solely
about Facebook: if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a
US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal.

Antitrust issues have been risen when Amazon promoted some products over
others.

The main questions, at least for me, are: what kind of action is acceptable
for these companies? Have they grown beyond their own governance?

And this applies to other companies as well. If Twitter were to shut down the
POTUS account for violating TOU, people would also wonder the state of limbo
of some platforms: should everyone be treated in equal terms? Does it bear
some responsibility as an intermediary for public officials? Should it be
subject to some standard verification protocol other than the one put in place
by its engineers?

It also raises questions for the user cases: should governments and public
officials use social media indiscriminately? Traditional media has a certain
democratic access to government: should governments give a specific social
media platform preferential treatment? Should there be a call for bids when
choosing a social media platform over others?

~~~
Semaphor
> But I don't think this is an overreaction

The overreaction was on facebook's part.

~~~
valker43
Well, one could argue that the ad campaign was made in bad faith. Warrens
people knew it would be flagged automatically by fb's algorithms because of
the logo. No one at Facebook actually decided to pull the ad. And it wouldn't
have been, if it weren't for going against ToS. The damage is done. But very
insidious tactic still.

------
justboxing
Serious question(s), not trolling.

Why shouldn't Facebook take down the ad that's calling for a break up of their
Company?

How is this any different from a person walking into a store and asking to
place an ad inside the store calling for breakup or shutting down of said
store? What store owner would ever allow such a thing?

Why would (or should) any business allow any sort of propaganda that strikes
at the heart of it's operations?

Why would Facebook be expected to restore the ads (which I don't think they
should've done).

~~~
mirimir
Well, the Warren Campaign was playing them, and they fell right into it.
Because, by taking down her ads, they supported her point that they have too
much power to control debate.

That is, that they've become a monopoly. So they either need to be very
careful not to abuse their monopoly, or be highly regulated, or be broken up.

Edit: Stole from ktjfi. [and spelling]

~~~
dgudkov
>That is, that they've become a monopoly.

Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement. I'm not a big fan of
Facebook but I don't see where it would be a monopolist.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Facebook has no monopoly on internet advertisement_

They do on local political ads. Google searches are no longer effective for
targeting those not already political involved. The local papers have been run
out of business. Direct mail is expensive and unreliable. Pretty much all
roads in this arena lead to Facebook, which makes its willingness to censor
opinions unfavourable to it disturbing.

There are strong reasons to break up Facebook into, at the very least,
Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

~~~
dgudkov
I strongly disagree. Political advertisement successfully worked long before
internet existed yet alone Facebook. Voters still live in houses, walk on
streets, drive cars on roads, use public transit, watch
TV/Netflix/YT/whatever. There are still many ways to reach them. Even if other
channels are more expensive it doesn't make Facebook a monopolist.

~~~
liability
People no longer receive daily, or even weekly, deliveries of newspapers. They
no longer crowd around the living room radio, and increasingly avoid the
television, which increasingly has neither a cable connection nor rabbit ears.

Like it or not, the world has changed.

~~~
dgudkov
The world has changed, but not _that_ much. People do have mailboxes, mailing
addresses and receive letters at least once in a while. Again, they drive
cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc. The real life still here, far
not everything has moved online. And even for that online part Facebook is not
a monopoly.

Influential online company? Absolutely. Monopoly? No.

~~~
liability
> _People do have mailboxes, mailing addresses and receive letters at least
> once in a while._

Nothing they receive in their mailbox holds their attention long, the
attention market is dominated by digital media.

> _Again, they drive cars, use public transit, walk on streets, etc_

With headphones in or bluetooth paired. Who the hell reads a billboard? Who
pairs their cellphone with their car, or owns headphones? Damn near everybody.
Just _try_ to buy a new car without Bluetooth.

Old propaganda distribution channels are dead men walking, and everybody knows
it. Unless you're advertising a _chicken wings and cleavage_ bar at the next
exit, you're a damn fool for paying for a billboard.

~~~
dnautics
I can name at least three of the snowflake data billboards, I know c3-iot is
hiring, and espetus has two billboards (one in San Mateo and one at the 101/80
junction). And I mostly ride the 280, and don't eat that much meat.

------
zaroth
From what I can tell, Facebook did _not_ take down all the ads Warren posted
calling for the breakup of Facebook, there were specific ads which got flagged
for use of the Facebook logo.

So it seems to me that Warren’s team when fishing for ads about breaking up
Facebook which would flag in the automated system, and then ran to report
about it.

It smells like a setup.

~~~
FakeComments
The whole thing is a set-up:

Small businesses are just as likely to block you negatively advertising about
them on their platform as large ones, so Warren showing she’s blocked doesn’t
tell us anything about Facebook’s size or practices compared to businesses in
general, and thus doesn’t tell us if they’re a problematic monopoly. How many
businesses let you use their service to argue against them?

Not even the news, collectively much less individually, accurately reports
content on the news — and they’re the ones held forward as examples of a self-
policing industry serving society.

The only way to conclude that Facebook abused their position here is if you
already believe that; otherwise, it really doesn’t seem like anything unusual
happened.

This seems like acting really aggressively, then whining when you get expected
and normal pushback: a common bullying tactic from children.

------
minimaxir
> Facebook confirms it took down Elizabeth Warren's ads about Facebook, but is
> in the process of restoring them.

> FB spox: "We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use
> of our corporate logo. In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are
> restoring the ads.”

[https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1105241057007087616](https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1105241057007087616)

~~~
gatherhunterer
The terms of service suggest that any ad that discusses Facebook is ripe for
removal. Her point stands and is expanded by the selective enforcement of
their ToS; is this the platform for public discourse that we want for
ourselves and do we want any such platform to be this powerful?

~~~
dmix
I thought Warren’s demographic loves having top down moderation-heavy social
networks?

~~~
int_19h
It depends. There are specific things that FB has done that makes their
censorship unwelcome in many leftie circles - e.g. the real name policy is
seen as transphobic by many, and their "indecent content" standards as sexist.
They have also removed comments such as "all white people are racist" as hate
speech.

But yes, I would say that most of her voters want different priorities in
online censorship, not less of it. It will be interesting how she navigates
that - "social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor" is
vague enough that Voat could put it on their front page as an endorsement (and
they just might, if only for the sake of trolling).

------
tsycho
Clever strategy by Elizabeth Warren. The ads might be effective in promoting
her platform by themselves. And if the media report on the apparent irony, or
FB takes them down, that gives her more publicity. FB's actions may cause a
Streisland-like effect as well.

~~~
sonnyblarney
It's not clever when you consider most people aren't supportive of it. There's
definitely a classist kind of fury right now, aimed a little bit at 'big
corps' and 'the rich' \- but I seriously doubt it extends to such moves.

Most people that use Facebook probably like it, pretty much, and don't suffer
any visible consequences of their ostensible loss of privacy.

Similar for Google.

I think a smarter approach would be some regulation that hit home,
particularly on privacy etc..

~~~
int_19h
I can assure you that there are many working class people who have a problem
with Facebook.

In fact, every time I see a discussion on Facebook and privacy in non-techie
FB communities, it's surprising how negative people feel, and how many say
that they would stop using it altogether, if they didn't have some connections
there they cared about. It's basically lock-in via social graph, and don't
think people are stupid enough that they don't notice.

~~~
sonnyblarney
That large groups of Americans have some 'concerns about privacy' is nowhere
near enough impetus to think that they want Facebook and Google to be 'broken
up'.

HN readers mostly live in bubbles, and 'breaking up Facebook' is definitely
one of the things Republicans just hope the Dems will run on, because it's not
going to fly.

Consider for a moment how separating Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook is going
to fundamentally change privacy anyhow?

This is a political calculation by Warren: she needs to stake out her claim,
make some noise, throw some red meat to the Dem primary voters, and take away
the noise in the press about her registering as an Aboriginal while living in
Texas.

It'll do well for her now, but it's not a winning formula for the general
election.

------
morningmoon
Breakup Facebook rhetoric is so counterproductive. It achieves nothing. It
solves no problem.

The country has real problems. “I don’t like Facebook” isn’t even remotely one
of them. I won’t be voting for her, that’s for sure.

~~~
tropdrop
This is a very short-sighted interpretation of the "break up Facebook & co."
campaign. It is not about Facebook per se, but about the surprising power of
tech giants - do you use Google? How about the internet?

Don't think this is a real issue? How about looking at some of the other
"real" problems she's addressed in her platform before outright dismissal? The
kind of impulsive, single-issue voting you're implicitly advocating for here
is exactly what the country does not need.

~~~
morningmoon
Yes, I use Google and the Internet. What's the _problem_?

To contrast this with healthcare. I can understand diabetics not being able to
afford medication for example, or people without the means to afford life
sustaining treatments.

Facebook buying Instagram? I don't understand what's wrong with that.

------
jonathanjaeger
What many fail to realize is that Facebook employees who approve/disapprove of
ads are not high up and also do so at a very fast pace. They follow the
guidelines and are humans, thus subject to some subjectivity. Any advertiser
who has done a lot of advertising on Facebook knows that one day an ad can get
approved and the next day a duplicate ad is not. The decision was overturned
in Warren's case. This is just making FB out to be much more nefarious than
they probably are (in this particular scenario).

~~~
cm2012
Without a doubt. Plus, the rule of "You can't use FB's logo" is not to stop
people criticizing FB. It's to stop fraudulent advertisers from pretending to
BE Facebook.

------
alanlamm
some of the things we have had censored by fb (even after appealing) 1\.
illustrations of cupid on valentines day, genitals covered, for nudity. 2\.
illustrations of a (non sexually provocative) mouth when the logo of our
product was a mouth. 3\. illustrations (not photos) of people of various body
types and ethnicities, not sexually provocative, showing skin but no genitals,
nipples or buttocks, with flowers and boxes of chocolates, as a 'love comes in
all shapes and sizes' valentines campaign. 4\. essentially any image that
might insinuate that a woman is capable of feeling pleasure. 5\. a friend's ig
project intended to promote education & wellness about women's bodies, in a
non-sexual way (e.g. did you know that a clitoris has x thousand nerve
endings?), with no images. 6\. pixelated images on red backgrounds with a
'censored' stamp on them (put up after others were censored) ... the list goes
on and on, to the point where we have considered launching a website just to
showcase the stuff fb (and other faangs) censor. ... meanwhile ig is filled
with essentially soft porn (not to mention images of guns together with bags
of money, which in my value system is much worse). ... so I, for one, am
laughing my head off at all this. they more than had it coming.

~~~
selimthegrim
At this rate they’d probably censor that song from Chicago (the musical) too
if someone posted it.

------
chj
All those people laughing at her proposal, they have no clue that this lady
understands tech perfectly well, and sees the problem of centralization in
tech industry more clearly. In an interview at SXSW, she addressed to the
people working for Big Tech companies, and said that break up will actually
make their work more interesting. This is really not some ordinary politician.

------
t0astbread
That's some excellent bait and Facebook fell for it:

1\. Put up a tiny anti-FB campaign that's not gonna reach anyone on FB

2\. FB bans it because their reviewers have to adhere to the rules set by
upper mgmt

3\. Now you're the victim -> Backlash for FB

4\. FB restores the ad

5\. Now you're the victim AND the winner

6\. The story spreads amongst anti-FB circles, where it was originally meant
to hit, with a massive impact (for little money)

~~~
loceng
Whether they planned for this outcome or not, I think it has merit to
highlight whether you're able to criticize Facebook on Facebook, and whether
using the Facebook logo int his case - associated directly with criticism/a
review of Facebook should be considered fair use; and not just for someone in
the political light but for average Janes and Joes, who has someone else in
this thread pointed out most everyone couldn't get away with or have the rules
'bent' for them.

------
buboard
Thats overreach on her part too, however. do her voters realize what this
means about her relationship with the press after she gets elected? or maybe
she is rehashing trump's entire tirades about corrupt media etc.

~~~
almost_usual
I’d imagine her relationship with the press would be positive. FB is actively
at odds with mainstream media.

------
nopriorarrests
Tangentially related -- according to Eric Weinstein, Facebook also banned Zero
Hedge so you can't share ZH stories anymore.
([https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/110529167842277376...](https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1105291678422773760))

------
josefresco
Not sure if this is smart by Senator Warren, or just campaign bluster.

The side of me that thinks it's smart, thinks that by asking for a lot (break
up of tech giants) she may be able to notch a win that isn't so aggressive
(data privacy regulations) It also "breaks the ice" for the argument for when
she brings it up on the campaign, it won't be so shocking.

The side of me that thinks it's dumb, thinks that she's misreading her
audience, in that most people could give two shits about privacy, and in fact
really like these platforms. She may be overplaying the "progressive" hand,
and as a result may be perceived as "too radical" to be elected by purple
states.

Regardless, I think her presidential aspirations are doomed. She's a woman,
smart, successful, outspoken, Harvard educated, progressive and from "the most
liberal" state in the country. All these things are toxic to Republicans.

------
AzzieElbab
Pretty classic provocation and overreaction

~~~
AzzieElbab
Amazon bans sales of Trump's "Break up Amazon to MAGA" hats

------
cm2012
This was done algorthmically. No doubt about it.

~~~
almost_usual
Does it matter?

~~~
cm2012
Sure. That algorithmic rule is to prevent people from pretending to be FB or
pretending to have FB's authority in ads (the you can't use the fb logo rule).
It wasn't meant to target critics of FB.

------
rjf72
There seems to be such a simple solution here that would solve the problems
without even needing to breakup companies: require companies offering user
generated content for free, to host such content under 'copyleft' licenses,
unless users explicitly opt out, and provide simple/API means of access and
submission. Copyleft meaning that anybody could freely copy and use the user-
generated content from these sites, so long as they themselves also enabled
anybody to freely copy and use that content.

Content (and other incentives) from users that are opted in would be treated
identically to those that opted out. The opt out option is mainly for sites
like YouTube where somebody might rely on the site for income and want to
voluntarily allow YouTube to publish their video under a restrictive license.

The idea is simple - get rid of the network effect. When content is provided
under copyleft licenses, anybody could effectively create a social media
system where users could see messages from e.g. Facebook and also post
messages that would be cloned to Facebook, yet not on Facebook.

The possibilities here are endless and it would pose a relatively small
regulatory burden on companies. And most important of all - it would actually
probably work. The network effect works like gravity. Even if you break
something apart, it will sooner or later come together again even if under a
different form.

\---

The biggest problem I see is a problem that any idea that could work, will
never be considered. Big tech is driving big bucks to politicians. As recently
as 2012 the FTC's bureau of competition submitted to the commissioners a
lengthy analysis that recommended suing Google for conduct that had, and would
continue to, cause _" real harm to consumers and to innovation."_ The
commissioners, majority Democratic appointees ( _not a partisan jab, but
rather emphasizing that this is an institutional /establishment issue - not a
partisan one_), chose not to pursue the case. [1]

[1] - [https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/reich/article/Break-
up-F...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/reich/article/Break-up-
Facebook-13409062.php)

------
chr1
Would US be able to breakup non-US tech companies, and if no how would it
prevent tech companies from moving outside the US? Some of them have enough
money to buy a small country or build a huge seasteading city.

~~~
michaelt
Tech companies haven't moved from San Francisco to Sacramento, in the face of
multi-million-dollar house prices in the Bay Area.

I find it hard to believe they're incapable of that, yet capable of what you
propose :)

------
didibus
I think I'd rather see it regulated, then broken up.

How are you even going to break it up?

And how do we know it won't just be a matter of time before another single,
central social network takes hold?

Social Networks have this property where they are only useful when other
people are also on the same one as you. To me, this property will just
guarantee that we would end up back in the same situation.

So it would seem smarter to me to just regulate it, so we can limit the bad,
and enjoy the good.

------
URSpider94
For everyone claiming that Facebook is a monopoly, I have two questions:

1\. What do they have a monopoly on? 2\. How would Warren’s plan (forcing FB
to divest WhatsApp and Instagram) eliminate that monopoly?

~~~
Marsymars
I expect that people making the "monopoly" claim are using imprecise language
that may vary in precision based on jurisdictional definitions of monopolies,
and fb's market share in any given jurisdiction. Laws about monopolies and
antitrust exist to prevent or mitigate certain problems that arise when
companies have disproportionate power and influence on society. Whether or not
fb qualifies as "monopoly", there are many cogent arguments to be made that
about its negative effects due to its disproportionate power.

------
Halluxfboy009
By removing her ad, Zuckerberger gave Warren's idea a couple of million
dollars worth of publicity.

------
speeq
Facebook even blocks links to social-media startups like Minds.com for being
"unsecure"..

------
Simulacra
Just curious, how many out there use some type of Facebook ad-blocking
solution?

~~~
pmoriarty
My Facbook ad-blocking solution has been to:

1 - quit Facebook

2 - use /etc/hosts to resolve any Facebook-related sites (and other
advertising/spam/tracking/malware sites) to 255.255.255.255

3 - proxy my web requests through privoxy

4 - use the uMatrix and uBlock Origin addons in Firefox that block anything
that gets through the rest

But I mostly browse the web through emacs-w3m, which isn't even capable of
running javascript so addons such as uMatrix are not necessary.

Needless to say, I almost never see ads.

------
snazzycalynx
well Warren now knows first hand what conservatives have been saying for years
- FB has no problem censoring those that they disagree with -welcome to the
Club

------
pmart123
While she views Facebook as too powerful, it is ironic she is happy to provide
as revenue to the company.

~~~
paxys
It's not ironic, this is the entire point she is trying to make. It is
impossible to reach a meaningful chunk of the public today without going
through Facebook, and they have the ability to filter content as they see fit.

~~~
sdinsn
> It is impossible to reach a meaningful chunk of the public today without
> going through Facebook

One could argue that the point of advertising is not to reach a meaningful
chunk of the public, instead a meaningful chunk of a specific demographic.

~~~
Barrin92
If that's the case Facebook's position is even more dominant, because of their
unique strength at giving advertisers the possibility to target specific
demographics.

~~~
pferde
So the lesson is, don't you dare to be too good and too successful in what you
do, otherwise we will do our best to have regulations drop on you like a bag
of bricks.

~~~
Skrillex
Basically. See US vs Alcoa [0]

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa)

