Sign in to follow this  
lasal

Sorkin Calls Out Zuckerberg

Recommended Posts

I'm afraid Congress and Sorkin have swung and missed at FB's devilish slider. The FB pitch that they will not police political ads run by known candidates for office is just a distraction. This FB move may or may not be good corporate policy relative to American democracy. Sorkin has next to nothing substantive to say beyond he's worried about crazy lies spreading. And, Zuckerberg has even less to say in response to Sorkin. If they're not working together, they should really talk about taking this show on the road.

The real issue is how FB embeds employees in campaign offices to assist in the use of machine learning, AI, and FB algorithms to target voters and create a virtual online world that references the underlying messaging of the paid ads with news and supporting items right down to an individual voter's feed. The problem goes far beyond lies in political ads. It's lies, or even truths, surrounded by a concrete silo of supporting items. The proof comes in the metrics used to justify ad pricing. "Look at the votes we delivered."

FB has decided its users are not only a commercial product, but also a political product for sale or lease.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the vast majority of FB users have the basic smarts to know that it's all bullshit being tailored and fed to them for someone else's benefit? Buy this, think that, believe this, repost that, vote for this, march in the streets for that, etc etc. Who the fuck would fall for that crap?

I keep trying to forget that I live on a planet where Donald Trump is the POTUS, Kanye West and the Kardashian sluts are rich famous role models, an autistic teenager gets to yell at the UN, etc etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Happy said:

Surely the vast majority of FB users have the basic smarts to know that it's all bullshit being tailored and fed to them for someone else's benefit? Buy this, think that, believe this, repost that, vote for this, march in the streets for that, etc etc. Who the fuck would fall for that crap?

I keep trying to forget that I live on a planet where Donald Trump is the POTUS, Kanye West and the Kardashian sluts are rich famous role models, an autistic teenager gets to yell at the UN, etc etc.

 

Look up the average IQ in the United States.  It will shock you.  The average person in the US would not be able to put together the post you just made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Look up the average IQ in the United States.  It will shock you.  The average person in the US would not be able to put together the post you just made.

 

Won't shock me!  We are in the race to the bottom, soon to be a has been ex-superpower, like the Greeks, Romans, British, and so many others before us.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is so much easier if you don't and have never had Facebook. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never would have known about Black Salve without Facebook, thanks Facebook!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/how-a-flesh-eating-fake-cancer-cure-spread-across-facebook

 

now, if tomballs were paying attention (hah!) he'd notice Facebook is angling for what he claims not to like. FB has been lobbying to be a "national champion of the US" and is explicitly kissing the ass of one political party to get this to happen.

but I've found libertarian principles are a laser pointer in front of a cat, always on the move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lasal said:

I'm afraid Congress and Sorkin have swung and missed at FB's devilish slider. The FB pitch that they will not police political ads run by known candidates for office is just a distraction. This FB move may or may not be good corporate policy relative to American democracy. Sorkin has next to nothing substantive to say beyond he's worried about crazy lies spreading. And, Zuckerberg has even less to say in response to Sorkin. If they're not working together, they should really talk about taking this show on the road.

The real issue is how FB embeds employees in campaign offices to assist in the use of machine learning, AI, and FB algorithms to target voters and create a virtual online world that references the underlying messaging of the paid ads with news and supporting items right down to an individual voter's feed. The problem goes far beyond lies in political ads. It's lies, or even truths, surrounded by a concrete silo of supporting items. The proof comes in the metrics used to justify ad pricing. "Look at the votes we delivered."

FB has decided its users are not only a commercial product, but also a political product for sale or lease.

 

 

That is the operative phrase. FB wants to sell ads to anyone with cash regardless of whether their claims are true or not. Political campaigns spend boatloads of money to advertise and FB is just looking to suck up some of those dollars (or rubles).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Happy said:

Surely the vast majority of FB users have the basic smarts to know that it's all bullshit being tailored and fed to them for someone else's benefit? Buy this, think that, believe this, repost that, vote for this, march in the streets for that, etc etc. Who the fuck would fall for that crap?

I keep trying to forget that I live on a planet where Donald Trump is the POTUS, Kanye West and the Kardashian sluts are rich famous role models, an autistic teenager gets to yell at the UN, etc etc.

 

The way the FB silos work is that's it's not all bullshit. Like our friend from FL points out above, there are all sorts of FB groups for hobbyists, fans, scientists, sailors, etc, that are legitimate, fun, and even helpful. And many people use FB to stay in loose touch with extended family, another pillar of legitimacy. So, what's tailored to people is a very complex mix of things that keeps them glued to the feed.

Watch the 60min interview with Trump's current campaign chairman. He started as the social media guy and now he heads the campaign. He's quite open about how he targets swing voters with FB. FB is the only social media tool he can do that with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rum Runner said:

That is the operative phrase. FB wants to sell ads to anyone with cash regardless of whether their claims are true or not. Political campaigns spend boatloads of money to advertise and FB is just looking to suck up some of those dollars (or rubles).  

Zuck said the fine FB paid was 10x (he actually said ten x) what they took in revenue from political ads. So, while it might be partly short term profit driven, I suspect the political and news parts of FB are a long term strategy to grow the platform and solidify it in a way that is hard to crack into by competitors, or by anti-trust legislators.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are political candidates allowed to lie during a debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Look up the average IQ in the United States.  It will shock you.  The average person in the US would not be able to put together the post you just made.

Thinking about IQ re FB, it strikes me that FB really targets all aspects of intelligence (borrowing from Seven Types of Intelligence). It's a 24 hr type platform too, so you have the daily mood and energy swings we all experience to some degree.

This also reminds me that while the GOP base is often described as mouth breathers in flyover country, the fact is GOP voters are largely college educated and have high relative incomes and are getting pretty old. I know some brilliant retired business people who live in a Fox and FB silo that paints t rump as a perfect prez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

From the Florida Birds and Wildlife FB group this morning.

73028104_10157221736548884_3176801336767

The guy who took it is a pro and takes great FL nature and lightning shots. I never would have known about him without FB.

 

Can't miss what you don't know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This global comparison map may be somewhat dated, but if not, then it's 98 for average IQ in the US. 

https://brainstats.com/average-iq-in-united-states.html

"Average" is supposedly meant to be 100.  Note however that our 98 looks to be well above average compared to a lot of countries on the map. China is tops at 110. 

Sort of like Mr. Kroger, who with a bunch of D's and an F,  was at *top* of the Delta pledge class..

But, look down on the intelligence of the "average" US citizen at your own peril.  There's more to it than IQ, there's emotional intelligence, and just plain common sense.  If you find yourself in the coastal bubble (where most of the sailboats are), don't get too carried away with how intelligent "we" are.   If we can figure out what's BS on Facebook political ads, so can "they".

Let Congress (Oooo-Ooooo, they're smart) decide whether the Prez gets booted, or let the great-unwashed dumb-cluck voters decide the same thing in an election which is not far away?   I tend toward the latter.  And letting the many settle this hash rather than the few will (I think) be less divisive for the country in the long run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nolatom said:

And letting the many settle this hash rather than the few will (I think) be less divisive for the country in the long run.

 

Cool story bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

From the Florida Birds and Wildlife FB group this morning.

73028104_10157221736548884_3176801336767

The guy who took it is a pro and takes great FL nature and lightning shots. I never would have known about him without FB.

 

Wow, a carrion eater that smells like old pussy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Are political candidates allowed to lie during a debate?

Depends.  Do they get paid cash directly for each lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, nolatom said:

This global comparison map may be somewhat dated, but if not, then it's 98 for average IQ in the US. 

https://brainstats.com/average-iq-in-united-states.html

"Average" is supposedly meant to be 100.  Note however that our 98 looks to be well above average compared to a lot of countries on the map. China is tops at 110. 

Sort of like Mr. Kroger, who with a bunch of D's and an F,  was at *top* of the Delta pledge class..

But, look down on the intelligence of the "average" US citizen at your own peril.  There's more to it than IQ, there's emotional intelligence, and just plain common sense.  If you find yourself in the coastal bubble (where most of the sailboats are), don't get too carried away with how intelligent "we" are.   If we can figure out what's BS on Facebook political ads, so can "they".

Let Congress (Oooo-Ooooo, they're smart) decide whether the Prez gets booted, or let the great-unwashed dumb-cluck voters decide the same thing in an election which is not far away?   I tend toward the latter.  And letting the many settle this hash rather than the few will (I think) be less divisive for the country in the long run.

 

Ever think that about how IQ is measured? Is there some giant magic Eye In The Sky measuring everybody's brain waves on an absolute scale?

Next, think about Congress... who picked them? Some other giant thing in the sky?

IMHO it's likely that this impeachment is going to drag out for quite a while, and of course those who are adamant to cast it as a political manipulation are correct but remember that they're just childishly mad because they don't see it going their way. Making into a formal trial, with nothing but the facts, ma'am, and the cold logic of written law and legal precedent, is not going to convince anybody who still supports Trump. OTOH the more detailed and documented the evidence against him is, the worse his supporters are going to be judged in the long run. As you say, people aren't as stupid as they often seem.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for one of the people championing lies - a jerk-z or a Tomballs or a soreass - to admit that they fall for lies & coordinated unauthentic activity sometimes. That it's not just "stupid people" it''s "stupid people like them".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the letter from Sorkin to Zuck on the New York Times, there is one good jab at the end.  

Given that FB seems to think it ok to lie, Sorkin suggests remaking the movie The Social Network so that the Winkelvoss twins invent FB .  

Brilliant!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rum Runner said:

When don't they lie?

When don't they lie.  When exactly are they lying vs. spinning.  Why in the world would facebook want to get in the middle of it?

If the opposing candidate lies, take that person to the mat over it.  Easy enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bugger said:

If you read the letter from Sorkin to Zuck on the New York Times, there is one good jab at the end.  

Given that FB seems to think it ok to lie, Sorkin suggests remaking the movie The Social Network so that the Winkelvoss twins invent FB .  

Brilliant!  

That was funny! Just saying " the Winkekwoss twins" is pretty funny. But since you read the op ed, beyond that joke, what a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

When don't they lie.  When exactly are they lying vs. spinning.  Why in the world would facebook want to get in the middle of it?

If the opposing candidate lies, take that person to the mat over it.  Easy enough.

Yeah, ignore all the issues and drag the convo into meaningless sintax. The R's love FB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 3:17 PM, lasal said:

FB has decided its users are not only a commercial product, but also a political product for sale or lease.

Yes, they were always a commercial product for sale to ad buyers.  

YouTube has a similar model but it does screen videos for content in order to be ad worthy.  Is that a better model?  Lots of heavily viewed YouTube videos are being demonitized over political views that YouTube seems not to like.

Further, any Youtube video that relates to "climate change" gets the Global Warming statement plastered under it.  "Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system. It is a major aspect of current climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming."

Why do we want these providers interfering with the messages?   YouTube and Facebook provide a huge benefit to society in exchange for some ads.  If that isn't a good deal for you, don't use them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jzk said:

Yes, they were always a commercial product for sale to ad buyers.  

YouTube has a similar model but it does screen videos for content in order to be ad worthy.  Is that a better model?  Lots of heavily viewed YouTube videos are being demonitized over political views that YouTube seems not to like.

Further, any Youtube video that relates to "climate change" gets the Global Warming statement plastered under it.  "Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system. It is a major aspect of current climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming."

Why do we want these providers interfering with the messages?   YouTube and Facebook provide a huge benefit to society in exchange for some ads.  If that isn't a good deal for you, don't use them.

 

Sure, they were always a commercial product, but now FB users are also a deliverable political product. Without basic fact checking of political ads combined with FB's carefully curated silo of information, there's clearly the opportunity for FB to deliver quite a package to political ad buyers. And that's exactly what they're selling, a powerful package not just ad space. Selling that kind of reach is a kind of propaganda machine that US democracy has not yet seen. Just since 2016 there's been an exponential data grab making FB algorithms that much more sophisticated. It's why the Trump campaign is headed by the old social media guy.

I know R's would love elections to devolve into a war of memes where issues are ignored.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lasal said:

Sure, they were always a commercial product, but now FB users are also a deliverable political product. Without basic fact checking of political ads combined with FB's carefully curated silo of information, there's clearly the opportunity for FB to deliver quite a package to political ad buyers. And that's exactly what they're selling, a powerful package not just ad space. Selling that kind of reach is a kind of propaganda machine that US democracy has not yet seen. Just since 2016 there's been an exponential data grab making FB algorithms that much more sophisticated. It's why the Trump campaign is headed by the old social media guy.

I know R's would love elections to devolve into a war of memes where issues are ignored.

 

So you would have the government control how people relay information among themselves?  Especially political information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, jzk said:

So you would have the government control how people relay information among themselves?  Especially political information?

I would have it illegal to deliberately lie for gain, whether in selling a product or in soliciting a vote

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would have it illegal to deliberately lie for gain, whether in selling a product or in soliciting a vote

- DSK

If one said "CO2 does not drive climate," is that a lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

If one said "CO2 does not drive climate," is that a lie?

No it's just plain stupid. Trying living in a "climate" of pure CO2 and see.

Aside from that, it would only be illegal if you said it intending to profit, for example if you were being paid to say it by fossil fuel industry

You can stupid shit for free, all you want to. People expect it from you

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No it's just plain stupid. Trying living in a "climate" of pure CO2 and see.

Aside from that, it would only be illegal if you said it intending to profit, for example if you were being paid to say it by fossil fuel industry

You can stupid shit for free, all you want to. People expect it from you

- DSK

The problem is the truth is not always popular.  The world is full of stupid people like you that will be prosecuting people that dare to suggest that the Earth is not the center of the universe, just because stupid people like you think it is.  

A climate of pure CO2?  What kind of stupid statement is that?  Life exploded on this planet at CO2 levels of 6000 - 7000 ppm including coral.  Are we in danger of creating a climate of pure CO2?  I guess only in your stupid brain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jzk said:
34 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

... stupid shit ... People expect it from you

 

The problem is the truth is not always popular.  The world is full of stupid people like you that will be prosecuting people that dare to suggest that the Earth is not the center of the universe, just because stupid people like you think it is.  

A climate of pure CO2?  What kind of stupid statement is that?  Life exploded on this planet at CO2 levels of 6000 - 7000 ppm including coral.  Are we in danger of creating a climate of pure CO2?  I guess only in your stupid brain.

Right on schedule, the spew express

Your statement was "CO2 is not a driver of climate" and I guess you think you proved something.

Meanwhile I have bad news for you.... it actually IS illegal to lie for profit. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people who commit this crime get away with it does not change the fact, although it perhaps helps bring home just how incompetent Trump is when he's gotten nailed for fraud a couple times

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Right on schedule, the spew express

Your statement was "CO2 is not a driver of climate" and I guess you think you proved something.

Meanwhile I have bad news for you.... it actually IS illegal to lie for profit. The fact that the overwhelming majority of people who commit this crime get away with it does not change the fact, although it perhaps helps bring home just how incompetent Trump is when he's gotten nailed for fraud a couple times

- DSK

Should it be a crime for a congress person to lie in a Congressional hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jzk said:

Should it be a crime for a congress person to lie in a Congressional hearing?

No. And that is why your constitution explicitly protects debate in congress. If the congresscritter were testifying, somehow, the rules change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, El Boracho said:
33 minutes ago, jzk said:

Should it be a crime for a congress person to lie in a Congressional hearing?

No. And that is why your constitution explicitly protects debate in congress. If the congresscritter were testifying, somehow, the rules change.

I dunno why it takes JZK several posts to suddenly realize he looks like a moron and desperately change the subject. It's obvious to anybody who isn't a....... oh wait

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
9 hours ago, jzk said:

So you would have the government control how people relay information among themselves?  Especially political information?

I would have it illegal to deliberately lie for gain, whether in selling a product or in soliciting a vote

- DSK

How do you think Joe Biden should be punished for this lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, El Boracho said:

No. And that is why your constitution explicitly protects debate in congress. If the congresscritter were testifying, somehow, the rules change.

Yes, the entire reason for the Speech and Debate clause is that we want politicians to speak freely without fear of governmental reprisal from shitheads like Steam.  

The last thing we want facebook doing is filtering political speech.  If a candidate says something you don't like or you think isn't true, take them to task for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

How do you think Joe Biden should be punished for this lie?

Because it's only lying when it's TeamD!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

The last thing we want facebook doing is filtering political speech.

unfiltered speech worked out so well for the Rohingya :rolleyes:

anyways - the stupid libertarian fucks are stupid libertarian fucks, insulated and isolated, unable to see they've already lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

unfiltered speech worked out so well for the Rohingya :rolleyes:

anyways - the stupid libertarian fucks are stupid libertarian fucks, insulated and isolated, unable to see they've already lost.

So then you vote to amend the Constitution and strike the speech and debate clause?  Let the speech "filtering" begin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jzk said:

So you would have the government control how people relay information among themselves?  Especially political information?

No.

So, you don't think what FB is offering to political campaigns in an ad package is light years beyond a TV network selling ad space on an over-the-air frequency? And you don't think that FB announcing that it will not fact check campaign ads, in addition to the AI developed ad targeting they offer which includes by it's very design a self-reinforcing stream of information, is a problem? Zuck keeps you on FB by sending stuff he knows you'll want to see--indefinitely. You think he's saying, "well, since Trump paid us for precise and carefully supported messaging to this group of 150 users, we should send those users a fair and balanced counter to Trump's propaganda, so Warren's ads will be free this week." No, Zuck is selling ammo in a meme war were he owns the battlefield, he owns the armory, he owns the pawns and countless data points on them, and he owns the play by play coverage of it all and where he is doing his best to keep eyeballs perpetually engaged for news, hobbies, family, and consumerism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
 

Facebook has been accused of pro-Republican bias, in both policy and personnel, amid fears at the company that it could be broken up if a Democrat wins the White House next year.

Chief executive Mark Zuckerberg faced fierce criticism this week, first for including Breitbart – once described by former chairman Steve Bannon as a “platform for the ‘alt-right’” – in its list of trusted sources for Facebook News, then for refusing to ban or factcheck political advertising.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

So then you vote to amend the Constitution and strike the speech and debate clause?  Let the speech "filtering" begin.  

There is no need to amend the Constitution.

It's already illegal to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

What we need is the common sense to realize when implausible lies are in fact lies, and the testicular fortitude to string up a couple of the liars.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lasal said:

No.

So, you don't think what FB is offering to political campaigns in an ad package is light years beyond a TV network selling ad space on an over-the-air frequency? And you don't think that FB announcing that it will not fact check campaign ads, in addition to the AI developed ad targeting they offer which includes by it's very design a self-reinforcing stream of information, is a problem? Zuck keeps you on FB by sending stuff he knows you'll want to see--indefinitely. You think he's saying, "well, since Trump paid us for precise and carefully supported messaging to this group of 150 users, we should send those users a fair and balanced counter to Trump's propaganda, so Warren's ads will be free this week." No, Zuck is selling ammo in a meme war were he owns the battlefield, he owns the armory, he owns the pawns and countless data points on them, and he owns the play by play coverage of it all and where he is doing his best to keep eyeballs perpetually engaged for news, hobbies, family, and consumerism.

I don't care what he is saying or selling.  It is political speech, and the government should not be regulating it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is no need to amend the Constitution.

It's already illegal to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

What we need is the common sense to realize when implausible lies are in fact lies, and the testicular fortitude to string up a couple of the liars.

- DSK

But unless you amend the Constitution, elected representatives can lie in Congress at will.  Isn't that a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

I don't care what he is saying or selling.  It is political speech, and the government should not be regulating it.  


Basic capitalist economics require anti-trust regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, lasal said:


Basic capitalist economics require anti-trust regulation.

No it doesn't.  But what does that have to do with regulating political speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does regulating political speech have to do with anything other than it's a stupid jerk-z strawman argument he's going to pillory posters with to dstract them - either becasue jerk-z is a psychopathic dumbfuck or a bad actor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

There is no need to amend the Constitution.

It's already illegal to shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

What we need is the common sense to realize when implausible lies are in fact lies, and the testicular fortitude to string up a couple of the liars.

 

But unless you amend the Constitution, elected representatives can lie in Congress at will.  Isn't that a problem? 

 

The answer is written in the post you quoted above.

Try reading it.

You can read, can't you?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

The answer is written in the post you quoted above.

Try reading it.

You can read, can't you?

- DSK

No it isn't.  A congressperson can lie at will in Congress, and there is nothing anyone can do about it legally.  And that is how it should be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jzk said:

I don't care what he is saying or selling.  It is political speech, and the government should not be regulating it.  

are you saying the government is not allowed to regulate advertising?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jzk said:

So then you vote to amend the Constitution and strike the speech and debate clause?  Let the speech "filtering" begin.  

Don't need to.  Speech and debate clause completely irrelevant this fact pattern, unless all of a sudden internet advertising has moved to the floors of congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, lasal said:

So, you don't think what FB is offering to political campaigns in an ad package is light years beyond a TV network selling ad space on an over-the-air frequency? And you don't think that FB announcing that it will not fact check campaign ads, in addition to the AI developed ad targeting they offer which includes by it's very design a self-reinforcing stream of information, is a problem?

I don't have any problem with advertising. I think the price for a broadcast TV ad and the price for a FB ad is a reasonable measure of effectiveness. Last I looked, FB was way cheaper.

Cheaper for a reason? I think so. Their vaunted AI tries to sell me whatever I just bought over and over and has very, very rarely presented something to me that I didn't know about and bought when I learned it.

Also, Rainbow Bernie changed nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

are you saying the government is not allowed to regulate advertising?

It should not be allowed to regulate political speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jzk said:

It should not be allowed to regulate political speech.

What exactly is "political speech" ?

If it's the same thing as advertising, then why should they be allowed to lie? That seems like a strange idea for a person or group with such strong principles. Maybe my company's quarterly financial report is "political speech" and I should be allowed to lie to my shareholders! Yeah that's the ticket!!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What exactly is "political speech" ?

If it's the same thing as advertising, then why should they be allowed to lie? That seems like a strange idea for a person or group with such strong principles. Maybe my company's quarterly financial report is "political speech" and I should be allowed to lie to my shareholders! Yeah that's the ticket!!

- DSK

The idea is that for political speech we don't want assholes like you deciding what is acceptable and not.  Let the politicians say anything they want, and let the voters decide.  

Besides, if a politician is a lying sack of shit, why make them hide it?  Best if we get it out in the open.

Expressions which comment on governmental affairs.  "Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."

Of course, anyone that knows the law knows how hard it is to make absolute rules that govern anything.  Should it be legal for a candidate to say "pay me $1000, and I will vote your way on the bill?"  Or should their be restrictions on what can be said near a polling place?  Those are real issues.  Government censorship of speech on facebook is not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I don't have any problem with advertising. I think the price for a broadcast TV ad and the price for a FB ad is a reasonable measure of effectiveness. Last I looked, FB was way cheaper.

Cheaper for a reason? I think so. Their vaunted AI tries to sell me whatever I just bought over and over and has very, very rarely presented something to me that I didn't know about and bought when I learned it.

Also, Rainbow Bernie changed nothing.

Trump's campaign manager, Brad, says you're not only wrong, but off by miles and miles. He's counting on you making massively flawed assumptions just likes he's counting on an aggregated news feed and unchecked alternative facts to effectively propagandize his targeted FB users to the tune of 500M in 2020 because in his words it's by far the best value.

Don't watch this, it will mess with your fantasy world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I don't have any problem with advertising. I think the price for a broadcast TV ad and the price for a FB ad is a reasonable measure of effectiveness. Last I looked, FB was way cheaper.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

in 2018 the difference between the same ad spend on FB vs. a superbowl ad was ~2 million views - <2%. https://digiday.com/marketing/5-2-million-super-bowl-ad-can-buy-digital-media/

Now here's the thing and I'll repeat it twice because you are stupid. ONLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATTERS. again ONLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATTERS. The Trump goal is to target the base in the few states that matter and FB is more efficient. Especially since stupid old farts love facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jzk said:

It should not be allowed to regulate political speech.

It is not.  But it is allowed to regulate advertising, right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

What exactly is "political speech" ?

It can take many forms. For instance, when a corporation files civil rights lawsuits, that has been first amendment-protected political expression since 1963.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

What exactly is "political speech" ?

It can take many forms. For instance, when a corporation files civil rights lawsuits, that has been first amendment-protected political expression since 1963.

Thank you for an actual sensible answer. I was hoping to get you righties to go further out on the limb of "politicians and especially political advertising should be allowed to lie"

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Thank you for an actual sensible answer. I was hoping to get you righties to go further out on the limb of "politicians and especially political advertising should be allowed to lie"

- DSK

Tom's not a righty, he's a liberal.  Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It is not.  But it is allowed to regulate advertising, right?  

State governments certainly have the power to regulate commercial advertising.  The Federal government ought not have such a power unless they are actually regulating interstate commerce.  

Neither have the power to regulate political speech.  

If you want to create a meme advertisement on facebook saying Trump is a clown, you should not have to prove some government panel that he is actually, in fact, a clown.  Nor should facebook have to.  The people are perfectly capable of determining whether or not he is truly a clown.  

See how easy that is?

What is the harm that you are trying to prevent?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

in 2018 the difference between the same ad spend on FB vs. a superbowl ad was ~2 million views - <2%. https://digiday.com/marketing/5-2-million-super-bowl-ad-can-buy-digital-media/

Now here's the thing and I'll repeat it twice because you are stupid. ONLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATTERS. again ONLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATTERS. The Trump goal is to target the base in the few states that matter and FB is more efficient. Especially since stupid old farts love facebook.

Why shouldn't a politician be able to target the voters that will actually make a difference in the election?  Because you don't like Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Tom's not a righty, he's a liberal.  Or something.

Well, a few years ago he was a dittohead, pretty much synonymous with willfully ignorant / intellectually dishonest rightie. Dunno if he's changed much, I read very few of his non-sailing posts.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jzk said:

State governments certainly have the power to regulate commercial advertising.  The Federal government ought not have such a power unless they are actually regulating interstate commerce.  

Neither have the power to regulate political speech.  

If you want to create a meme advertisement on facebook saying Trump is a clown, you should not have to prove some government panel that he is actually, in fact, a clown.  Nor should facebook have to.  The people are perfectly capable of determining whether or not he is truly a clown.  

See how easy that is?

What is the harm that you are trying to prevent?  

I'm not trying to prevent anything.  I'm simply pointing out that untrue advertising may be regulated pursuant to state and federal statute regardless of what you think ought to be.

here's another question:  Is it common for the courts to find that the federal government is not 'regulating interstate commerce' when it legislates?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

here's another question:  Is it common for the courts to find that the federal government is not 'regulating interstate commerce' when it legislates?

 

Not very common at all.  Is that a good thing?  Should the federal government be able to just grant itself powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Not very common at all.  Is that a good thing? 

Hard to say.  Governments by their nature almost continuously try to grant themselves more powers, and the courts have very much helped them along their way.  Partisanship hasn't come into it - federal judges of all stripes have been pretty open to allowing congress almost unbridled latitude on what is interstate commerce and it's only getting more permissive year after year.  Things that aren't interstate commerce can be quasi-regulated to almost any degree if that regulation is a refusal to fund things from the federal purse.

 

Quote

Should the federal government be able to just grant itself powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution?

Obviously the discussion we are having isn't about powers that are beyond those enumerated in the Constitution unless we are reading difference constitutions.  I see the Commerce Clause in mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

here's another question:  Is it common for the courts to find that the federal government is not 'regulating interstate commerce' when it legislates?

It has happened a couple of times, notably in the Obamacare case and the Lopez case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

It has happened a couple of times

Yes, it has.  Out of 10,000 pieces of legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Tum Wu read this thread? Must have.

Facebook Isn’t Just Allowing Lies, It’s Prioritizing Them

By refusing to stay out of politics, the company is building the case for its own breakup.

Tim Wu

By Tim Wu

Mr. Wu is a law professor at Columbia.

https://nyti.ms/32hKcg2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
22 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

It has happened a couple of times

Yes, it has.  Out of 10,000 pieces of legislation.

Also notable when it hasn't happened. For a long time, TeamR types decried Wickard v Filburn, saying, "how can homegrown wheat for personal consumption be interstate commerce?"

Then Angel Raich came along asking "how can homegrown cannabis for personal consumption be interstate commerce?" Uh oh. That gored a sacred cow. All of a sudden, TeamR types could see the interstate commerce in it all.

Back on the thread topic, Facebook has the constitution on their side.
 

Quote

 

the Trump presidency seems to be on the verge of bringing us some kind of federal government crackdown on political speech on social media.

As usual in Washington, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Some of the blame belongs to the Republicans. They vote for these bills and sign them into law even after swearing or affirming to preserve, protect, and defend a Constitution that includes the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, and petition.

And some of the blame belongs to the Democrats. They have such a constricted view of the boundaries of reasonable discourse and are so confident in the popularity of their own views that whenever their side loses an election, they immediately conclude that the rules need to be changed to prevent whatever vote-buying or disinformation must have caused the otherwise inexplicable outcome.

 

Heh. This forum strikes me as one long example of that latter type of information bubble sometimes.
 

Quote

 

One of the landmark press freedom cases of the 20th century, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, concerned a paid advertisement by civil rights activists in the 1960s that, as the syllabus of the case puts it, "included statements, some of which were false." Should desegregation activists in the 1960s south have been prevented from targeting advertisements to sympathetic Northern liberals? Or should they have been forced to pay also for ads to segregationists, so that everyone saw the same ads? And should the ad have been rejected because of the false claims?

The justices in Times v. Sullivan found that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they 'need . . . to survive.'" The Court cited an earlier ruling, NAACP v. Button, observing "the constitutional protection does not turn upon 'the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.'"

 

A few good questions in that first paragraph.

As for the next paragraph, it often seems that very, very few of us celebrate NAACP Inc's corporate first amendment rights victory in the Button case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's freedom but being able to take cold hard cash from communist dictatorships to enable ethnic genocide then wrapping yourself in the flag and crying "freedom"?

 do libertarians love anything more than lying and propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, lasal said:

It's undemocratic.

Care to take a shot at the questions below?

Quote

One of the landmark press freedom cases of the 20th century, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, concerned a paid advertisement by civil rights activists in the 1960s that, as the syllabus of the case puts it, "included statements, some of which were false." Should desegregation activists in the 1960s south have been prevented from targeting advertisements to sympathetic Northern liberals? Or should they have been forced to pay also for ads to segregationists, so that everyone saw the same ads? And should the ad have been rejected because of the false claims? 

 

On 11/6/2019 at 10:41 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Not really, I think it's pretty clear that actual knowledge can be imputed to them, hence malice under NYT

Does the malice come from the platform or the publisher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 12:01 PM, Rum Runner said:

Today's Facebook scam - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/facebook-is-making-millions-off-a-shady-gun-group-that-cons-its-customers_n_5db0b401e4b0d5b7894548fc

Just makes Zuckerberg seem like a nice guy to have a beer with. Doesn't it?

Sounds like the secret Facebook landing page(s) are misleading, if only to people who are pretty ignorant of their own state laws.

In SCOTUS trivia news, on this day in 1975, Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council was argued. The decision came out in May of the following year.
 

Quote

 

Syllabus

Appellees, as consumers of prescription drugs, brought suit against the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy and its individual members, appellants herein, challenging the validity under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of a Virginia statute declaring it unprofessional conduct for a licensed pharmacist to advertise the prices of prescription drugs. A three-judge District Court declared the statute void and enjoined appellants from enforcing it.

Held:

1. Any First Amendment protection enjoyed by advertisers seeking to disseminate prescription drug price information is also enjoyed, and thus may be asserted, by appellees as recipients of such information. Pp. 425 U. S. 756-757.

2. "Commercial speech" is not wholly outside the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Virginia statute is therefore invalid. Pp. 425 U. S. 761-773.

(a) That the advertiser's interest in a commercial advertisement is purely economic does not disqualify him from protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Both the individual consumer and society in general may have strong interests in the free flow of commercial information. Pp. 425 U. S. 762-765.

(b) The ban on advertising prescription drug prices cannot be justified on the basis of the State's interest in maintaining the professionalism of its licensed pharmacists; the State is free to require whatever professional standards it wishes of its pharmacists, and may subsidize them or protect them from competition in other ways, but it may not do so by keeping the public in ignorance of the lawful terms that competing pharmacists are offering. Pp. 425 U. S. 766-770.

(c) Whatever may be the bounds of time, place, and manner restrictions on commercial speech, they are plainly exceeded by the Virginia statute, which singles out speech of a particular content and seeks to prevent its dissemination completely. Pp. 425 U. S. 770-771.

(d) No claim is made that the prohibited prescription drug advertisements are false, misleading, or propose illegal transactions, and a State may not suppress the dissemination of concededly truthful information about entirely lawful activity, fearful of that information's effect upon its disseminators and its recipients. Pp. 425 U. S. 771-773.

373 F.Supp. 683, affirmed.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 425 U. S. 773, and STEWART, J., post, p. 425 U. S. 775, filed concurring opinions. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 425 U. S. 781. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do notice scam ads on facebook pretty much on a daily basis.  Today's scam, a 627 lb log splitter for $113.  

https://fneog.myshopify.com/products/horixdef?fbclid=IwAR2bRNaiQfJkBXC8pQqmgkiV1lLsdVr38wFEJirSdJJqGi6Wcv0SFdb9nqs

Open bank account with merch services.  Post scam ad on facebook.  Let the orders roll in.  Close bank account.  Let the cc company take the losses.

Facebook doesn't even seem to try to filter these.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this