Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:40 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,043
Nah, I don't buy the McDonald's analogy -- for one, lest we forget, McD's pays for those potatoes, they don't get paid by the supplier. We're not Facebook's customers, the advertisers and marketers are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
This is one of the top reasons to keep the Republicans in power.
What, that some dude in a Message Board gets wound up in an argument and forgets that a law to forbid political advertising would not even make it to committee? The allegedly-Republican President at one point brainfarted that redflagged people should have their guns seized first, then given due process later.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 11-09-2019 at 01:42 PM.
  #102  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:49 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Nah, I don't buy the McDonald's analogy -- for one, lest we forget, McD's pays for those potatoes, they don't get paid by the supplier. We're not Facebook's customers, the advertisers and marketers are.
I concede that while no analogy is perfect, this one is probably well below average.
  #103  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:55 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
I'll have to think about this more. Perhaps I am just so used to ignoring political ads on Facebook that I don't really seem bothered or affected by them. There's something seriously wrong with people who get their political news from Facebook, I think.But I don't know if sheltering them from their own stupidity, naivety and impressionability is the answer.
...there isn't anything particularly "wrong" about people who get their "political news from Facebook". Its how the system has been set up to work. Algorithms determine what sort of things people would like to see, then it shows those things on their daily feed, people read then absorb it. This isn't "wrong". Its perfectly normal. But the system has been hijacked. Weaponized by people who figured out how the algorithm worked, and they've used that knowledge to broadcast specific propaganda to specific vulnerable people. It becomes a feedback loop: the more they consume a certain type of media, the more of it shows up in their news feed. If Biden were to post a rebuttal to an advert containing lies from Trump & Co the person being force-fed a diet of daily propaganda would never-ever see it.

Quote:
I think society is generally too quick to demand that the government step in to "fix" things, and I am perhaps overly cautious when those demands teeter on infringing on things like free speech.
Have you seen me calling for the "government to step in and fix this?"

Quote:
I don't disagree with this. Twitter surely did the right thing; perhaps the best thing. But having the government jump in and attempt to bully Zuckerburg (or any private person or corporation) into taking a particular course of action isn't the best approach. Especially when, as you rightly point out, we haven't figured out "exactly what is going on" so we can't possibly know exactly how to combat it.
Which is why a "pause" is the best, most responsible thing Facebook could do right now.

Quote:
One thing I am certain of, is that attacking, insulting, and shaming people who 1) find Facebook useful;
I haven't done that. I advertise on Facebook daily. I have a social media person who constantly posts on Facebook. I find Facebook useful. Why would I attack, insult and shame them?

Quote:
2) are not influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda;
To a degree we are all influenced by what we consume.

And I certainly haven't attacked, insulted nor shamed the people who are influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda. That isn't my point. That's not what I'm here for. The people most likely to attack, insult and shame these people are the ones that don't think there is a problem.

Quote:
3) aren't ashamed or paranoid about the "private" information collected by internet-based business and social media
You shouldn't have anything to be ashamed about. But we are talking about companies that sell AI Assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant that literally recorded private conversations in peoples homes then allowed contractors to listen to them. If you aren't being paranoid about what they are up to then there is something wrong with you. Facebook got fined 5 billion dollars for how they handled private information during the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And they are still lying about this. They really can't be trusted.

Quote:
Someone such as the OP who prides him(her?)self as someone who gets politically involved and tries so hard to convince others of his/her particular views should take that into consideration.
Its the fucking pit. Its the place to rant. Did you come here to learn something? There are better places for that.

Quote:
You're never going to convince anyone with that technique, and are probably doing more harm than good.
More harm? LOL. Who are we hurting here?

Quote:
Is actual advertising the problem?
Ummm, yes? You read my cites didn't you?

Quote:
Or is it all of the fake news, viral crap-posts--many of which are from fake accounts created specifically to spread disinformation?
Fake news, crap-posts, mostly from fake accounts created specifically to spread disinformation aren't a problem. Pay close attention to Jack-from-twitter's-argument here:

"A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money."

If a fake account screams in the forest nobody will hear them. Twitter aren't placing limits on peoples free speech. Organic reach (who gets to see what a "fake account" is saying) is limited to people who follow that account or who happen to view a retweet. Paid reach changes that dynamic completely. And if the person paying for that reach has the resources of the United States government or the money to be able to hire a company like Cambridge Analytica, then all of a sudden these people have the power to literally steal an election.

Quote:
If it's the latter, how does Twitter plan to combat that?
By limiting the ability of people to be able to pay for reach for certain types of content.

Quote:
If it's the former, then why waste time with Zuckerburg at all?
That should be pretty obvious by now.

Quote:
The federal government has more power to modify campaign laws than it does to dictate what type of advertisements Facebook is allowed to accept, and how much effort and money and resources they need to divert to vet the statements made in those ads. They could pass a law forbidding political advertising and campaigning on social media altogether.
The executive branch of the United States of America at the moment is (to use the words of Sarah Kendzior) is a "transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government." They broadcast propaganda daily using institutions that used to have a degree of independence. Maybe, hopefully, in a few years time, we might get to the point where these criminals are kicked out of office and they can start to maybe fix this goddamn mess. But they won't do that now. Because they are loving this. It helps keep them in power. Its exactly what they want.
  #104  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:03 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,447
I'm much less incensed that people get their fake news from Faceplant than I am that they're getting fake news from CNN and MSDNC. Watch 24 hours of either of those networks and you'd swear that Bernie Sanders isn't even running for president. Big difference here is that Faceplant is a social media platform and CNN and MSDNC are presented to the world as actual NEWS ORGANIZATIONS that are carefully curating and shaping what "news" they decide to present to the world--when this happens in other countries we call it "propaganda." That's a much bigger problem than inaccurate memes being disseminated by regular people (or even bots masquerading as regular people) on social media. There's a huge difference in scope and access between these two things that can't be ignored and I prefer to focus on the larger problem than the relatively insignificant one.

Last edited by SmartAleq; 11-09-2019 at 02:04 PM.
  #105  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:18 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,434
Anyone who gets their news from cable TV is getting tilted-to-one-side news at a minimum. Facebook is where the straight up bullshit gets published. And although my aunt Rita is someone I used to consider smart, she buys that bullshit, shares it and votes.
  #106  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:25 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
I'm much less incensed that people get their fake news from Faceplant than I am that they're getting fake news from CNN and MSDNC. Watch 24 hours of either of those networks and you'd swear that Bernie Sanders isn't even running for president. Big difference here is that Faceplant is a social media platform and CNN and MSDNC are presented to the world as actual NEWS ORGANIZATIONS that are carefully curating and shaping what "news" they decide to present to the world--when this happens in other countries we call it "propaganda." That's a much bigger problem than inaccurate memes being disseminated by regular people (or even bots masquerading as regular people) on social media. There's a huge difference in scope and access between these two things that can't be ignored and I prefer to focus on the larger problem than the relatively insignificant one.
One word: scale.
  #107  
Old 11-09-2019, 04:51 PM
D_Odds is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,886
Twitter's solution, while inelegant, is possibly the best one can expect. There are still plenty of ways that bot farms can game their system, but it takes paid access off the table. Facebook could do the same, which at the very least would save Zuck from facing the boneheaded questions of 400+ representatives and the tough, intelligent questions from < 5 representatives. But there is really no way that Facebook can, nor should, be the arbiter of truth in advertising. There is way too much grey area, and even then, are we just talking national elections, or will we include every state, county, and local election? If someone is running a campaign with an honest ad 1-2 days before election day and it gets flagged as dishonest, which will happen (and it will happen in the opposite direction too), what is the remedy? Lose the reach at the most critical time?

This is yet another case of seeking simple answers for complex problems. Low and no information voters are still going to be low and no information. No one is addressing the Fox problems, or Breitbart/Infowars/et al (and while it has its issues, don't even try to pretend MSNBC is as bad as Fox, or that there is a left equivalent with the reach of Breitbart). It's not addressing that the fucking, and hopefully very soon convicted former, President of the United States is personally eroding trust in true journalism, telling the low/no info voters it is okay to disregard news that is inconvenient. It's barely a band-aid trying to cover a 12" long gash.
__________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected
  #108  
Old 11-10-2019, 12:48 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
And I certainly haven't attacked, insulted nor shamed the people who are influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda. That isn't my point. That's not what I'm here for. The people most likely to attack, insult and shame these people are the ones that don't think there is a problem.
I'm talking about the OP, not you

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 11-10-2019 at 12:50 PM.
  #109  
Old 11-10-2019, 12:57 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is offline
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
More harm? LOL. Who are we hurting here?
Do you really not understand how using a particular tactic can turn people away? I'm not talking about hurting people, I'm talking about hurting a cause. I'm talking about counterproductive techniques that, instead of influencing people to agree with your views, can make them vote against your cause. And if you can't see how the OP's techniques might hurt his cause, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Quote:
Ummm, yes? You read my cites didn't you?
Like I said. If political advertising is the actual issue, then the solution is simple. The federal government has the ability to affect campaign reform laws which can include rules which forbid advertising on social media platforms.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 11-10-2019 at 12:59 PM.
  #110  
Old 11-10-2019, 12:59 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Like I said. If political advertising is the actual issue, then the solution is simple. The federal government has the ability to affect campaign reform laws which can include rules which forbid advertising on social media platforms.
The federal government is the one doing the lying.
  #111  
Old 11-10-2019, 01:42 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno;21965402o
Like I said. If political advertising is the actual issue, then the solution is simple. The federal government has the ability to affect campaign reform laws which can include rules which forbid advertising on social media platforms.
What's the track record on how legislation of this type fares when subjected to judicial review?
  #112  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:13 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
I'm talking about the OP, not you
...but you were talking to me. The sentence:

"One thing I am certain of, is that attacking, insulting, and shaming people who 1) find Facebook useful;2) are not influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda;3) aren't ashamed or paranoid about the "private" information collected by internet-based business and social media"

was not addressed to the OP, it was addressed to me. I answered appropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Do you really not understand how using a particular tactic can turn people away?
Like the particular tactics you are using, right here, has turned me away from your position?

Quote:
I'm not talking about hurting people, I'm talking about hurting a cause.
You're complete and utter ignorance and refusal to take anything I've said seriously hurts my cause infinitely more than a rant by someone in the pit.

Quote:
I'm talking about counterproductive techniques that, instead of influencing people to agree with your views, can make them vote against your cause. And if you can't see how the OP's techniques might hurt his cause, then I don't know what else to tell you.
I patiently explained to you, with cites and everything, about the scale and the problems with both how Facebook does things, its vulnerabilities to being weaponized, and the fundamental problems with Facebook's position on political advertising in contrast to one of its rivals, Twitter.

And in response to this you write:

Quote:
Like I said. If political advertising is the actual issue, then the solution is simple. The federal government has the ability to affect campaign reform laws which can include rules which forbid advertising on social media platforms.
You kind of ignore the salient point here (with thanks to TimeWinder) that the Federal Government is doing the lying. The people in power benefit from this. They exploit this. That's my entire fucking point.

If my entire fucking point completely goes over your head, even though I went through the extra effort of explaining my point extremely carefully, then what the fuck do you even want at this stage? How is the OP hurting my cause? Its fucking obvious you aren't going to listen even if something is explained to you politely. So why not fucking rant instead?
  #113  
Old 11-10-2019, 09:12 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Do you really not understand how using a particular tactic can turn people away? I'm not talking about hurting people, I'm talking about hurting a cause. I'm talking about counterproductive techniques that, instead of influencing people to agree with your views, can make them vote against your cause. And if you can't see how the OP's techniques might hurt his cause, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Like I said. If political advertising is the actual issue, then the solution is simple. The federal government has the ability to affect campaign reform laws which can include rules which forbid advertising on social media platforms.
"Technique"? It's a rant, for fucks sake.
  #114  
Old 11-11-2019, 12:14 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,545
The pox on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all the rest of their fucking houses. They have all contributed to the ruin of people's self-esteem and enabled addictive attention seeking behaviour. People aren't connecting so much as trying to impress everyone they've ever known, and complete strangers they've never met, with the illusion of "living their best life ever" - It's pathological and pathetic.

Still, some are just sharing happy news with friends and family.

So, as rants go, it was well deserved but lacking in originality. I give it: 2/5.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #115  
Old 11-22-2019, 10:40 AM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,660
Zuckerberg is a hypocritical two-faced lying asshole.

When it suits him, Facebook is a platform. When it suits him, Facebook is a publisher.
When it comes to laws, responsibilities, liability, AND TAXES, these are two completely different things.

Additionally he says he does not believe in censoring anything - meaning far right alt right lies and incitement, but has NO problem censoring other things.

So to hell with him.

Last edited by SteveG1; 11-22-2019 at 10:40 AM.
  #116  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,160
@ Gary Kumquat I hope you will answer me. As I discussed above, you objected strongly to one of my posts. I then demonstrated that the views I was espousing were the opposite of what you claimed they were. Your understanding was completely backwards!
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let me review my views. I am largely a determinist. The problem isn't that a particular cop was unkind, or a particular insurance worker unhelpful. Instead, both of them are themselves Victims of the System. Should we blame rural voters who went to, e.g. bad parochial schools, or didn't learn cognitive methods? Again, they are Victims of The System....

My parable became confusing because Dopers assumed the toddler's dad was the metaphrand for the low-information voter. I tried to dissuade this pre-emptively with ....

NO! I'm saying just the opposite.
...
...

Yes, I think I'd better ask the Management for another 45-day voluntary suspension. Before they cut me off though, I'd like to hear from Gary. AFAICT, you've got my position completely backwards.
I think some of you (or most of you? ) find something objectionable in my tone; and don't bother to understand my points. Then, whatever viewpoint on that subject you find wrong or stupid is the viewpoint you (baselessly) ascribe to me!

I was hurt and confused by the exchange. If Gary doesn't answer, will someone else please help me here?
  #117  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:35 AM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
One word: scale.
Damn, I just knew it would be synergy.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #118  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:58 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,829
If it bothers you that the President of the United States is able to lie, then why the fuck do you want to allow a repeat of what allowed him to be elected in the first place? Fake news and false political ads are the same thing. And the number of people who believe the fake news is high enough, and the margin of winning low enough, that I can't believe that stopping fake news at the time would have likely meant Trump wouldn't have been elected.

We got all so mad about that fake news then, and every single social media platform decided they'd do something about it. Now Facebook is saying "Nope. We don't care." And people are defending this nonsense.

So the fuck what if there is gray area? There are also things that are black and white. Why should the existence of a gray area mean that the black stuff not be dealt with? It's such an idiotic argument. "You can't do it perfectly, so you shouldn't even try." Fuck that bullshit.
  #119  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:14 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
We got all so mad about that fake news then, and every single social media platform decided they'd do something about it. Now Facebook is saying "Nope. We don't care." And people are defending this nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? I don't care what Facebook puts on its site. And I don't care if they don't care. Why should they care? Are they under some obligation to make sure morons don't get elected? I don't see what you envision their obligations are.
  #120  
Old 11-26-2019, 12:23 AM
SciFiSam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beffnal Green innit
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Do we, in fact, already have rules that political ads can't lie? No. So what is he doing differently? Nothing.
Yes. In the UK we have those laws and they've been flouted a lot recently and got into the news.

It's the same in most of the EU, and the OP was about a representative of the EU.

You can't seriously be saying that lying in political ads is legal in the US?
  #121  
Old 11-26-2019, 12:34 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,663
It seems to be. Child sex rings being run out of pizza store basements??
  #122  
Old 11-26-2019, 12:37 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,663
Well, granted that wasn't an ad, but you could probably get away with calling someone a socialist on an ad, when they aren't.
  #123  
Old 11-26-2019, 04:32 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
@ Gary Kumquat I hope you will answer me. As I discussed above, you objected strongly to one of my posts. I then demonstrated that the views I was espousing were the opposite of what you claimed they were. Your understanding was completely backwards!
Fuck me, is it needy o'clock already? Let's just refresh ourselves on the comment you reckon is completely misrepresenting your views:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
fuck it, I've no idea what point you're even trying to make. That if we expect adults to check internet facts for themselves, that we should hold children to account for taking guns to school. Or something? Fuck knows.
To recap:

1) I had no idea what point you were trying to make
2) I still have no idea what point you're trying to make
3) I really think you need some time away from the internet.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017