.png "back to home page")
Facebook loves framing this political ad mess (and all backlash) as a media/politics vs. FB thing, but some of the loudest voices of opposition have come from current and former employees. https://t.co/rsY8rfPcN3
— Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) November 4, 2019
a major problem for facebook is that very/very few ppl trust mark zuckerberg to understand & fix disinformation on the platform. political ads can be seen in that context of mistrust. https://t.co/TrTRVxAyGg
— David Kaye (@davidakaye) November 4, 2019
Too many good points in here to list. Just read it. “Yaël Eisenstat is a former elections integrity head at Facebook, CIA officer, and White House adviser.” https://t.co/URpUe7sHzq
— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) November 4, 2019
"Facebook can, by tinkering with its rules for political ads, give itself a special, unregulated power over elections.... By refusing to stay out, Facebook is in effect building the case for its own breakup." @superwuster ??https://t.co/JnqoQsUQxI
— Scott Galloway (@profgalloway) November 5, 2019
By refusing to stay out of politics, Facebook is making the case for its own breakup https://t.co/Qz3MZ5bvbu
— Tim Wu (@superwuster) November 4, 2019
And now @NBCNews cites 3 anonymous @Facebook executives in reporting that @finkd won't change policy on banning political ads, but may be open to limiting targeting: https://t.co/FQinTFMVcR Tantalizingly close to an epochal change.
— Alex Howard (@digiphile) November 5, 2019
all of this is enormously frustrating, but the "scalable" part - where facebook - one of the richest, highest-resource companies in the world - rejects anything that has to be locally customized is just :headdesk: https://t.co/kwMk0GsJHv
— Cyd Harrell (@cydharrell) November 5, 2019
The real problem is #Facebook profits partly by amplifying lies & selling dangerous targeting tools that allow political operatives to engage in a new level of information warfare. Its business model exploits our data to let advertisers custom-target people ↘️ https://t.co/XDxBdZnmOV
— Marietje Schaake (@MarietjeSchaake) November 4, 2019
Facebook over-hypes its political ads transparency effort. @YaelEisenstat points out all the microtargeting details that Facebook would need to disclose if it was being honest with us about what really matters to this debate over freedom of expression. https://t.co/LOlf8bUW8u pic.twitter.com/1OD9szO6Hc
— David Carroll ? (@profcarroll) November 4, 2019
Facebook now open to limiting targeting for political ads.
— Alex Kantrowitz (@Kantrowitz) November 5, 2019
I'd be surprised if Facebook didn't make this move -->https://t.co/laBJ2qoOAq pic.twitter.com/wlYDCfyW0E
Great editorial response to those people at @Facebook who want to try and claim - but other places run ads...
— Chet Faliszek (@chetfaliszek) November 4, 2019
Facebook’s and @oculus employee’s silence is agreement with these policies and agreement with the idea their profits are more important than democracy. https://t.co/B3k2dWDO0i
We have an election in five and a half weeks but sure, mull it over, Mark. https://t.co/18Hz7NFe5A
— hern (@alexhern) November 5, 2019
FB’s former head of Global Elections Integrity: FB “exploits our data to let advertisers custom-target people, show us each a different version of the truth and manipulate us with hyper-customized ads — ads that...can contain blatantly false info if run by a political campaign.” https://t.co/SJ1DJu9fAl
— Aaron C. Davis (@byaaroncdavis) November 5, 2019
Facebook hired me to help solve their political ads mess. As detailed in my OpEd, they still won’t address the core problem: a business model and targeting tools that give political operatives a new form of information warfare. Democracy is the casualty.
— Yael Eisenstat (@YaelEisenstat) November 4, 2019
https://t.co/F4Yf5NH3RC
A must read by @YaelEisenstat in @washingtonpost. Important for far too many reasons than I can emphasize in a Twitter message. She writes from experience and deep commitment/ passion for preserving and strengthening US democracy. Thank you!!! https://t.co/BaN6A19wsg
— Carolyn Kissane (@CarolynKissane) November 4, 2019
A sobering analysis of Facebook’s approach to political ads from an insider. https://t.co/NiMiBucRGg
— Rebekah Tromble (@RebekahKTromble) November 5, 2019
Shifting the debate away from fact checking or banning political ads toward the harms of microtargeting is pressuring His Zuckness. No word on a moratorium for Custom Audiences which allows voter files to be uploaded to match to individual FACEBOOK users. https://t.co/ikErqvcq7q
— David Carroll ? (@profcarroll) November 5, 2019
An important read.
— Matthew Ocko (@mattocko) November 4, 2019
So many firefighters hired by Zuck & Sheryl to address @facebook’s hideous dumpster fire are reporting they were handed buckets of gasoline instead of water & ultimately told to STFU.@YaelEisenstat is one of these folks https://t.co/iTdI5axnz3
?Twitter announced its decision to ban political ads from its site. Democratic operatives + pundits began advocating for Facebook to follow suit. ?
— ACRONYM (@anotheracronym) November 5, 2019
But our CEO @taraemcg warns that if Facebook bans political ads it would have disastrous consequences. ?https://t.co/JjO83Va9BI
I think @taraemcg is right. Banning political ads on Facebook won't solve the problem of a giant right-wing echo chamber. https://t.co/3R2bsYAoeZ
— Phil Aroneanu (@philaroneanu) November 5, 2019
?️ If Facebook were to ban ads, those media platforms could be excepted from the rules or, if banned from advertising, would still benefit from organic reach, continuously feeding the echo chambers they’ve built with the help of Facebook’s algorithms. ?️https://t.co/JjO83Va9BI\
— ACRONYM (@anotheracronym) November 5, 2019
The question of banning political ads, or just microtargeting, or implementing real fact checking on FB is insanely nuanced. More: https://t.co/oHlypWZGaG
— John Battelle (@johnbattelle) November 4, 2019
Can Twitter's decision to ban political ads change how social media influences politics? @karaswisher explains: https://t.co/wvV6KWzpgB
— Recode (@Recode) November 5, 2019
Twitter banned political ads — but it probably won’t change how social media influences politics. @karaswisher and @adrs weigh in on #Resetpod: https://t.co/Yoew7v6eHN
— Vox (@voxdotcom) November 5, 2019
Twitter got rid of political ads. Will it help or hurt? @karaswisher weighs in. https://t.co/2SgygbdDqf
— Vox (@voxdotcom) November 5, 2019
Twitter got rid of political ads. Will it help or hurt social media’s influence on politics? https://t.co/CcJtxj51wC via @voxdotcom
— ↪MAX EDGE↩ (@maxedge051) November 5, 2019
Twitter got rid of political ads. Will it help or hurt social media's influence on politics? https://t.co/i6jzbNuDpR
— Jeffrey Levin (@jilevin) November 5, 2019
Twitter got rid of political ads. Will it help or hurt social media’s influence on politics? https://t.co/Cme2FwS5TX
— Recode (@Recode) November 5, 2019
Facebook hired me to help solve their political ads mess. As detailed in my OpEd, they still won’t address the core problem: a business model and targeting tools that give political operatives a new form of information warfare. Democracy is the casualty.
— Yael Eisenstat (@YaelEisenstat) November 4, 2019
https://t.co/F4Yf5NH3RC
I don’t agree with everything here, but this take from @YaelEisenstat on Facebook & political ads is important and well worth a read. I especially echo the calls to include transparency on targeting, which @kreissdaniel & I have advocated for as well. https://t.co/doKyynwgXM pic.twitter.com/G8oXYcPyet
— Shannon McGregor, PhD (@shannimcg) November 5, 2019
"[T]rue transparency would include information about the tools that differentiate #advertising on #Facebook from traditional print and television, and in fact make it more dangerous": https://t.co/BQfzCLn6y5 #ethics #democracy #business #media #socialmedia #privacy cc @jmethics
— Internet Ethics (@IEthics) November 5, 2019
Bold perspective by Yaël Eisenstat, FB's former head of Global Elections Integrity Ops
— Scott Galloway (@profgalloway) November 5, 2019
"I worked on political ads at Facebook. They profit by manipulating us."https://t.co/I2y3IswTSW
LOL this line from @YaelEisenstat's excellent WaPo op-ed on Facebook political ads:
— Cathy O'Neil (@mathbabedotorg) November 4, 2019
"People wanted to get this right. But above me, there was no appetite for my pushing, and I was accused of “creating confusion.”
I bet they were confused!https://t.co/s5wHsnfkvD
I worked on political ads at Facebook. They profit by manipulating us. https://t.co/nie6t2o9V1
— Nick #FBR #FBPE (@hazydav) November 5, 2019
This piece shifted my thinking on the Facebook political ad issue.
— Jon Fortt (@jonfortt) November 5, 2019
They’ve been innovative in communication and calculation. Why not approach this question from, “How can we improve the quality of election comms globally?”https://t.co/VTEWlACVW0 pic.twitter.com/xzjkYdYfAo
I worked on political ads at Facebook. They profit by manipulating us. https://t.co/bOgZNgOOf4
— Tactical Tech (@Info_Activism) November 5, 2019
Question: „whether companies should profit from providing potent information warfare tools for political advertisers to target us with disinformation. The answer there is clear: We can’t afford to let them anymore.“ #democracy https://t.co/KrIDpQ72Dy
— Ilona Kickbusch (@IlonaKickbusch) November 5, 2019
"I worked on political ads at Facebook. They profit by manipulating us.
— Frederic Filloux (@filloux) November 5, 2019
The company can’t avoid damaging democracy".https://t.co/fPxZNJ1gZ3 pic.twitter.com/MXWJDqsWbE
From former Facebook employee @YaelEisenstat:
— Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) November 4, 2019
“The real problem is that Facebook profits partly by amplifying lies and selling dangerous targeting tools that allow political operatives to engage in a new level of information warfare” https://t.co/5RS7ufT40A
There is no doubt this is the case. The only question is if we - as a society, our leaders, our government - will do anything timely, and it looks like a big "no."
— Soraya Chemaly (@schemaly) November 5, 2019
"I worked on political ads at Facebook. They profit by manipulating us." - @YaelEisenstat https://t.co/VYDtuvyzZq
Targeting “users based on the vast amounts of data we had gathered meant political ads should have an even higher bar for integrity than what people were posting in organic content.”https://t.co/ohJyJ27UW4
— Frank Pasquale (@FrankPasquale) November 5, 2019
Instead: a Wild West of manipulation, falsehoods, & lies.
I worked on political ads at Facebook. They profit by manipulating us. - The Washington Post https://t.co/TAoDQs5wsH
— toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) November 5, 2019
Now, here’s an interesting development! @NBCNews reports that @facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is open to an idea I put forward in today’s @washingtonpost: Limiting the ability of candidates to target narrow groups of users, or #microtargeting them.https://t.co/cKDTwFL5BD pic.twitter.com/jM5eopkUzN
— Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) November 5, 2019
So this is pretty crucial — @DylanByers reports that Facebook could limit micro targeting on political ads.
— Jason Abbruzzese (@JasonAbbruzzese) November 5, 2019
That’s a big move.https://t.co/WOP6NjEWqc
Facebook is holding firm on not fact-checking or banning political ads, but Zuckerberg is mulling limiting microtargeting for political ads, @DylanByers reports. Kinda curious how that'll work: Isn't that the main advantage digital ads have? https://t.co/h3GTwXaJRO
— Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) November 5, 2019
Facebook now open to limiting targeting for political ads.
— Alex Kantrowitz (@Kantrowitz) November 5, 2019
I'd be surprised if Facebook didn't make this move -->https://t.co/laBJ2qoOAq pic.twitter.com/wlYDCfyW0E
Why use #Facebook?
— Nelson Pung (@NelsonPung) November 5, 2019
Facebook’s Zuckerberg holds line on political ads, but microtargeting could change https://t.co/gtMiCf43RV via @nbcnews
One of the nation's top civil rights organizations wrote Mark Zuckerberg this morning, laying out a road map for how Facebook could face potential criminal penalties for violations of anti-discrimination, consumer protection, and voting rights laws https://t.co/IEDZi79exE
— dell cameron (@dellcam) November 5, 2019
Top Civil Rights Lawyers Warn Mark Zuckerberg of Potential Criminal Liability in Scathing Open Letter #SmartNews https://t.co/OZWLEFU8KN
— Linda Dudek ? (@DudekLinda) November 5, 2019
Maybe if they didn't try to end my career in 2014 and interfere on my research, things would have turned out differently.
— Patrick Ryan AKA Pay Me In Pee Tapes (@emblem21CEO) November 5, 2019
I guess we'll never know. Flap flap, fuckface. May all of Silicon Valley burn to ash.https://t.co/oDR1YNPQNS pic.twitter.com/j5vqwypIxN
“The First Amendment is not the only amendment. Democracy works by balancing an interrelated set of rights, each of which are essential and equal.”
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) November 5, 2019
--Kirsten Clark, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Lawhttps://t.co/5O64Ii5lNd
"[A] prominent civil rights organization on Tuesday issued a stern warning to Mark Zuckerberg, outlining a number of federal laws to which ... #Facebook may theoretically be held to account": https://t.co/cOxbTIidpx #ethics #internet #tech #business #socialmedia ht @neilturkewitz
— Internet Ethics (@IEthics) November 5, 2019
Top Civil Rights Lawyers Warn Mark Zuckerberg of Potential Criminal Liability in Scathing Open Letter https://t.co/AT5qawXchu
— Tactical Tech (@Info_Activism) November 5, 2019
heresy, in our America (except for 2A): "The First Amendment is not the only amendment. Democracy works by balancing an interrelated set of rights, each of which are essential and equal" https://t.co/6XkUqtWuaG #Facebook #freespeech #rights
— David Golumbia (@dgolumbia) November 5, 2019
““The Communications Decency Act will not save you...” @dgolumbia @neilturkewitz https://t.co/5i98OeH7TY
— One Ring (doorbell) to surveil them all... (@hypervisible) November 5, 2019