5 ms·

I wonder if it'll be a obscurely named toggle hidden away in a settings sub page somewhere just so they can say they've offered the option. Unlikely of course

I wonder if it'll be a obscurely named toggle hidden away in a settings sub page somewhere just so they can say they've offered the option. Unlikely of course but it would be nice if they were turned off by default and they offered users the option to turn them on with a disclaimer about how inaccurate and shady many of them are.

blocked_again 6y ago
> Unlikely of course but it would be nice if they were turned off by default This means the revenue KPI of the ads team would go down right? So will never happen.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  It's probably worth noting that if you were running an online ads platform, revenue probably wouldn't be what you'd optimise for. You'd be better off optimising for an event that advertisers will pay you for.
buybackoff 6y ago
Not only hidden away, but one will have to set this option every time the page refreshes, as with time ordering of timeline. That latter behavior nullified FB usability for me, not using for 2+ years and happy. Every time when come back just run away scary of the political trash bin it has become.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  There are browser extensions for that
CyanBird 6y ago
They would not even need to hide it, the fact that it is an optin feature already means that most people won't ever turn it off and therefore be exposed to said political messaging even when the idea is for them to not be
m463 6y ago
> I wonder if it'll be a obscurely named toggle hidden away in a settings sub page somewhere just so they can say they've offered the option. Wouldn't that disproportionately remove only young urban democrats from political advertising? also, how come the news of this change only came from a non-american news source?
- gonzo41 6y ago
  Facebook is going to make a staggering amount of money up until November this year in the US. That's why its not getting airplay in the states.
- corin_ 6y ago
  > Wouldn't that disproportionately remove only young urban democrats from political advertising? If that were the case, it might actually be beneficial to Democrats since they wouldn't waste money advertising to those people meanwhile Republicans wouldn't be able to change their minds with advertising. Or it could go the other way, and inability to constantly be reminding those people how great the dems are and how important it is to vote means the turnout will be lower among those who turned off ads than if they hadn't been able to. (And I agree with everyone saying that FB cares more about making bank from the election than about actually improving the situation.)
- mcherm 6y ago
  > also, how come the news of this change only came from a non-american news source? Well, did you read the first two sentences of the article? > Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg says users will be able to turn off political adverts on the social network in the run-up to the 2020 US election. In a piece written for USA Today newspaper, he also says he hopes to help four million Americans sign up as new voters. The USA Today article is easily located: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/facebook-voter-campaign-strengthen-democracy-mark-zuckerberg-column/3191152001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/facebook-v... My conclusion is that Hacker News has a bias in favor of a news source like the BBC over a news source like USA Today which is strong enough to overcome USA Today having the original story yet have the BBC article be the one voted up.
blibble 6y ago
no doubt it'll keep "accidentally" getting switched back on
amelius 6y ago
Facebook is the least of our worries. We need a system where running a successful political campaign does not depend on how much money you bring. Each candidate should have the same budget and so equal amount of exposure.
- kleer001 6y ago
  True. And sadly the most basic solutions rarely get air time anywhere. Just as I rarely see petitions for "equal and free advertising for all candidates" I rarely see "hold authorities accountable for their actions". Sure there's related arguments among the clammer, but never hear it stated that simply.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I don't know how you do this fairly without infringing on non-political candidates right to free speech. It seems a little nuts that I'm not allowed to endorse my preferred candidate because my endorsement has value and my candidate hit their cap.
  - amelius 6y ago
    Simple. Suspend the right to loud forms of free speech during political campaigns. Or have an independent panel measure the media exposure of each candidate. Then compensate them accordingly.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Easy, just revoke the most protected form of speech in the country during such times when that speech is most important. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to buy that one.
      - amelius 6y ago
        Why? Every candidate still gets some time-slots for stating their opinion. The point is that everybody gets the same amount of time. And people who are not candidates and who want to express their opinion, they can: (1) vote, or (2) be a candidate. What they can't do is buy media time or advertisements, etc., which many wouldn't equate with "free speech" anyway.
AshleysBrain 6y ago
In my experience, if it's just an option on a settings page somewhere, virtually nobody will change it in practice. So if that's what they do and it's still enabled by default, this could be completely ineffective - but provide some political cover for them.

blocked_again 6y ago

> Unlikely of course but it would be nice if they were turned off by default This means the revenue KPI of the ads team would go down right? So will never happen.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
It's probably worth noting that if you were running an online ads platform, revenue probably wouldn't be what you'd optimise for. You'd be better off optimising for an event that advertisers will pay you for.

buybackoff 6y ago

Not only hidden away, but one will have to set this option every time the page refreshes, as with time ordering of timeline. That latter behavior nullified FB usability for me, not using for 2+ years and happy. Every time when come back just run away scary of the political trash bin it has become.

missedthecue 6y ago
There are browser extensions for that

CyanBird 6y ago

They would not even need to hide it, the fact that it is an optin feature already means that most people won't ever turn it off and therefore be exposed to said political messaging even when the idea is for them to not be

m463 6y ago

> I wonder if it'll be a obscurely named toggle hidden away in a settings sub page somewhere just so they can say they've offered the option. Wouldn't that disproportionately remove only young urban democrats from political advertising? also, how come the news of this change only came from a non-american news source?

gonzo41 6y ago
Facebook is going to make a staggering amount of money up until November this year in the US. That's why its not getting airplay in the states.
corin_ 6y ago
> Wouldn't that disproportionately remove only young urban democrats from political advertising? If that were the case, it might actually be beneficial to Democrats since they wouldn't waste money advertising to those people meanwhile Republicans wouldn't be able to change their minds with advertising. Or it could go the other way, and inability to constantly be reminding those people how great the dems are and how important it is to vote means the turnout will be lower among those who turned off ads than if they hadn't been able to. (And I agree with everyone saying that FB cares more about making bank from the election than about actually improving the situation.)
mcherm 6y ago
> also, how come the news of this change only came from a non-american news source? Well, did you read the first two sentences of the article? > Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg says users will be able to turn off political adverts on the social network in the run-up to the 2020 US election. In a piece written for USA Today newspaper, he also says he hopes to help four million Americans sign up as new voters. The USA Today article is easily located: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/facebook-voter-campaign-strengthen-democracy-mark-zuckerberg-column/3191152001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/17/facebook-v... My conclusion is that Hacker News has a bias in favor of a news source like the BBC over a news source like USA Today which is strong enough to overcome USA Today having the original story yet have the BBC article be the one voted up.

blibble 6y ago

no doubt it'll keep "accidentally" getting switched back on

amelius 6y ago

Facebook is the least of our worries. We need a system where running a successful political campaign does not depend on how much money you bring. Each candidate should have the same budget and so equal amount of exposure.

kleer001 6y ago
True. And sadly the most basic solutions rarely get air time anywhere. Just as I rarely see petitions for "equal and free advertising for all candidates" I rarely see "hold authorities accountable for their actions". Sure there's related arguments among the clammer, but never hear it stated that simply.
Spivak 6y ago
I don't know how you do this fairly without infringing on non-political candidates right to free speech. It seems a little nuts that I'm not allowed to endorse my preferred candidate because my endorsement has value and my candidate hit their cap.
- amelius 6y ago
  Simple. Suspend the right to loud forms of free speech during political campaigns. Or have an independent panel measure the media exposure of each candidate. Then compensate them accordingly.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Easy, just revoke the most protected form of speech in the country during such times when that speech is most important. I don't think the Supreme Court is going to buy that one.
    - amelius 6y ago
      Why? Every candidate still gets some time-slots for stating their opinion. The point is that everybody gets the same amount of time. And people who are not candidates and who want to express their opinion, they can: (1) vote, or (2) be a candidate. What they can't do is buy media time or advertisements, etc., which many wouldn't equate with "free speech" anyway.

AshleysBrain 6y ago

In my experience, if it's just an option on a settings page somewhere, virtually nobody will change it in practice. So if that's what they do and it's still enabled by default, this could be completely ineffective - but provide some political cover for them.