.png "back to home page")
good @nytimes op-ed by @sivavaid on political ads. Extreme policies on polar ends from FB & Twitter both point toward the urgent need for the same thing: govt. regulation around the means by which voters can be digitally targeted. https://t.co/vuLNE2TI4D
— Shannon McGregor, PhD (@shannimcg) November 2, 2019
To curb FB, the “key is to limit data collection and the use of personal data to ferry ads and other content to discrete segments of Facebook users — the very core of the Facebook business model” - @sivavaid in @nytimes https://t.co/DLqBRJW9mN
— Jeff Pooley (@jeffersonpooley) November 3, 2019
I (sort of) defend Facebook’s political ad policy here. I excuse it, mostly. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. https://t.co/VUyl0Dmugg
— SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN??? (@sivavaid) November 2, 2019
Most rage at social media companies is misdirected anger at Trump. That’s why proposed remedies are so incoherent
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) November 3, 2019
1. Breaking up Twitter makes no sense
2. 1st amendment means government can’t regulate political speech
It’s anger not rational thinking.https://t.co/3MgBR9AVXE
You know that feeling when you read something brilliant that clearly states a truth your previously overworked mind couldn’t get to the bottom of? Tks, @sivavaid, for identifying the $ basis of Zuck’s obfuscating disingenuousness! ht @BrettFrischmann https://t.co/1iI8xX8qFV
— Evan Selinger (@EvanSelinger) November 2, 2019
This is closest version to my understanding of situation as well. Agreeing to ban political ads would open FB up to a much bigger problem: It will be very hard to stop them from coming in anyway via self-serve platform, showing a more existential problem https://t.co/cMKvs2PVBN
— Sara Fischer (@sarafischer) November 2, 2019
Twitter is banning all paid for political ads. Something had to be done to start to combat the increasingly sophisticated fake news that is damaging our democracy. I am supportive of the move and other platforms should follow. Roll back, regulate, restore trust. https://t.co/JVVUlPFN2i
— Layla Moran ? ?️? (@LaylaMoran) October 31, 2019
“A reason to be concerned about false claims in ads is that Facebook affords us so little opportunity to respond to ads not aimed at us personally.” https://t.co/fY4fvTUTVo
— Galen Panger ☕️ (@gpanger) November 2, 2019
Fantastic op-ed by @sivavaid. Can only agree: we need legistlation curbing targeted political ads! https://t.co/vyIR9inMJ6
— Johan Farkas (@farkasjohan) November 2, 2019
The real reason Facebook won't fact check (or ban) political ads? It doesn't have to & it's really important for FB to keep global leaders (who use FB to get elected & re-elected) very happy.
— Farooq Butt (@fmbutt) November 3, 2019
The only answer: legal pushback by citizens & employees.https://t.co/KbajAZWM9Z pic.twitter.com/NeHsH5LEQZ
Totally agree with this, but those who created the problem should be tasked with fixing it, even if it’s difficult. Truth and democracy are at stake.
— Sleeping Giants (@slpng_giants) November 2, 2019
This shit is hard. A world of disinformation is much, much harder. https://t.co/20hstOa7Gf
Zuckerberg and Dorsey insist they aren’t news outlets. They say Facebook and Twitter are just “platforms” that convey everything and anything – facts, lies, conspiracies – without the responsibilities that come with being part of the press.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) November 3, 2019
Rubbish. https://t.co/Cqwwep9ccb
‘Break up these companies!’ reminds me a lot of Brexit - it sounds simple until you ask ‘well, what would you break them up into, and what problem would that actually solve?’ https://t.co/nbKfZWym6a
— Benedict Evans (@benedictevans) November 3, 2019
Facebook and Twitter spread Trump’s lies – they must be broken up | Robert Reich https://t.co/rUxeMxFCBq
— Debbie (@Dangchick1) November 3, 2019
"We had to kill free speech in order to save it." https://t.co/zRKhiJpLRs I look forward to @guardian going out of business for endlessly gaslighting its readers.
— Martin Geddes (@martingeddes) November 3, 2019
Most rage at social media companies is misdirected anger at Trump. That’s why proposed remedies are so incoherent
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) November 3, 2019
1. Breaking up Twitter makes no sense
2. 1st amendment means government can’t regulate political speech
It’s anger not rational thinking.https://t.co/3MgBR9AVXE
Leftists openly call for the suppression of speech. They are totalitarians.
— Deplorable Pug (@j_r028956) November 3, 2019
"[Facebook and Twitter] can’t be the major carriers of the news on which most Americans rely while taking no responsibility for its content."
DANGEROUS PEOPLE. https://t.co/jTcWcnIowE
This from @sivavaid makes a really important point: the reason Facebook and others don't make rules is that once you make rules, you have to enforce them and can be held accountable for them. It's so much easier to not even try https://t.co/RkutYvfuQg
— David Pierce (@pierce) November 3, 2019
Pair this terrific @sivavaid NYT piece with Yochai Benkler Rob Faris Hal Roberts’ Network Propaganda in bringing some law to address online political ads. https://t.co/k28kdrr5lW
— Danielle Citron (@daniellecitron) November 2, 2019
If Facebook is “too big to govern,” perhaps that’s an argument for breaking it up? https://t.co/dpampOTUkf via @NYTOpinion
— Naomi Oreskes (@NaomiOreskes) November 2, 2019
There's a term called bike shedding where a lot of discussion focuses on a minor part of a project. It's named after asking a group of people what color to paint a bike shed.
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) November 3, 2019
Political ads in social media apps is bike shedding for journalists. https://t.co/VzXgCHnO91
Many strong points in this piece by @sivavaid. A key takeaway is that platform monopolies will not change their behavior unless we enact structural reform. We need to remove the incentives that drive them to cause social harm https://t.co/DiO5AkdSQo
— Victor Pickard (@VWPickard) November 3, 2019
The Real Reason Facebook Won’t Fact-Check Political Ads https://t.co/GCadjjxbML pic.twitter.com/3m5WbdSQC5
— arianna ciccone (@_arianna) November 3, 2019
Yes, it's not the censorship it's the targeting but I challenge my colleagues to start talking about Custom Audiences to general readers and the specific threat this feature poses to the democratic process. Even Facebook employees agree with that. https://t.co/PoHrDGSW9n
— David Carroll ? (@profcarroll) November 3, 2019
‘We should know better than to demand Facebook’s leaders to do what isn’t in the best interest of the company. Instead, citizens around the world should demand effective legislation that can curb Facebook’s power’ @sivavaid in @nytimes ↘️ https://t.co/1scuxrYeL9
— Marietje Schaake (@MarietjeSchaake) November 2, 2019
The Real Reason Facebook Won’t Fact-Check Political Ads https://t.co/gwdfCZMhTr
— SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN??? (@sivavaid) November 3, 2019
.@sivavaid "Facebook is incapable of vetting political ads effectively & consistently at the global scale. And political ads are essential to...the company’s presence in countries around the world."
— Mike Ananny (@ananny) November 2, 2019
Facebook needs scale that it can't govern.https://t.co/fYvjKhjAZY
I’m saying that because of this, which I am more ruefully mocking than outraged by. I’m glad it’s out there. It’s just...I’ve been called crazy saying this shit for a long time, you know? https://t.co/RqZs6H48jw
— Brooke Binkowski (@brooklynmarie) November 3, 2019
@sivavaid has a thoughtful op-ed in the @nytimes to explain why FB will not voluntarily police political ads effectively. Core elements of FB biz model — amplification and micro targeting — are inherently bad for democracy. https://t.co/LLGGhSlmv6
— Roger McNamee (@Moonalice) November 2, 2019
The Real Reason Facebook Won’t Fact-Check Political Ads https://t.co/GjBw54AjTI
— Rohan Samarajiva (@samarajiva) November 3, 2019
The thing to do IMHO, is to make Facebook universally recognized as an unreliable source of information that isn’t personal. “Saan mo narinig yan?” “Sa FB.” “Ay kaya naman pala kalokohan.” https://t.co/R0pKbkYEQf
— Bart Guingona (@guingonabart) November 3, 2019
“here’s something Congress could do: restrict the targeting of political ads in any medium to the level of the electoral district of the race.”-@sivavaid https://t.co/O2dDWT3Lhm
— Alex Howard (@digiphile) November 3, 2019