
Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes - mozumder
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit
======
CM30
This is basically the same situation all 'platforms' and 'social media sites'
are stuck in now. On the one hand, they want to be allowed to censor content
to please advertisers and make things 'palatable' to the mainstream, yet at
the same time they want the legal immunities granted to a common carrier like
an electricity company or telephone company.

Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, Medium, Instagram and various others are all in the
exact same situation. Hopefully at one point they'll be made to take a real
stance and either admit they're a publisher or stay neutral on content.

------
mozumder
This is an issue as it relates to it's editorial decisions on controversial
political issues.

Does Facebook allowing white-nationalist content mean it's endorsing it as an
editorial decision?

If any other publication published content that endorses white nationalism,
they'd be shunned by the advertising world. Can't imagine Proctor & Gamble or
Chevrolet as willing to place their ads next to white-nationalist content in
Facebook.

~~~
iMerNibor
Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to
them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform
whatsoever)

Like, I might if the ad is relevant to the piece of content in question. For
example if I am watching construction/woodworking/industrial videos on youtube
I won't be surprised if I see ads relating to tools, but thats about it.

I'm not gonna go ahead and buy this tool specifically because the ad is on a
video I enjoyed, or associate another company with evil just because it's on a
bad video.

Another guess would be it's simply the subconcious thing of seeing an ad to
something potentially bad?

~~~
mozumder
> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to
> them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform
> whatsoever)

Yes. This is how branding works. It's why companies pay for a famous celebrity
to represent their brand, instead of a random person, because you associate a
higher quality with a famous celebrity.

The major brands have very specific rules on what their ads can appear next
to.. they actually write down things like "our ad can't appear next to
blood/violence" etc..

Doesn't matter if it's user-generated or not. As long as that image exists
next to the brand, the brand is fucked. I mean, what would you think of Chanel
if they ever placed their beautiful ad next to a picture of a dead body?

~~~
hackinthebochs
>because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity.

I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because
celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of
status symbol.

But the question remains, does an ad being shown next to something
objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Even when
people know the placement is algorithmic/automatic? I don't think speculation
will answer this question.

~~~
EpicEng
This is fairly well settled science. If you have conflicting data then by all
means, share, but you can't just write off decades of _real_ work in the field
based upon your own musings and expect to be taken seriously.

~~~
hackinthebochs
I'm not sure what decades of research you're referring to, but after my own
search the literature seems suspiciously sparse on the effects of endorser to
_perceived quality_ of the product. I agree that celebrity endorsements are
effective generally, just not for this reason. I would be interested in seeing
some of these studies you're referring to.

~~~
mozumder
So, when advertising agencies run A/B tests, they don't publish the result in
scientific journals. They just use the data internally along with art
direction and relationship/political factors to make advertising decisions.

This isn't an open source field with a handy guide. This is a 'knowledge
through experience' field. You learn from those people, not through academic
research or Google search.

In fact, a good advertiser can instantly find holes in published research
based on the many variables that a paper doesn't take into account, but an
advertiser is already familiar with. "Brand value correlates with celebrity
status... but inversely with the celebrity nationality.. with a correlation
with the accent.. but also with season of the year.. except when using this
font... and based on president's party" etc.. All these variables may have a
nonlinear relationship.

To get a good introduction to what you're dealing with, just watch "Mad Men".

------
olliej
Dumb question: is this a semantics issue?

to the general public “publisher”=“something like the NYT” vs legally where it
probably means “making stuff publicly available”?

~~~
fgonzag
From what I understand, if you're a publisher you can censor or restrict
content according to your own rules. Very different from a common carrier,
where you can't restrict content and in doing so gain immunity for the
content.

It seems Facebook Et Al want the best of both worlds

~~~
olliej
Don’t get me wrong: FB is clearly out to screw everyone other than themselves:
governments, tax boards, their users (selling their details to anyone with
money), the peoplepaying for user info (by selling them fake user data).

This was just a “i’m Not sure if in many of these cases it’s a confusion over
general vs legal definitions” :D

