Facebook hate-speech boycott had little effect on revenue(axios.com)
axios.com
Facebook hate-speech boycott had little effect on revenue
https://www.axios.com/facebook-hate-speech-boycott-had-little-effect-on-revenue-15984194-124e-41e0-821b-cc3a1b29e28d.html
190 comments
I'm also a FB advertiser. Here my thoughts on it:
1) Facebook's reach is unique. If you want to share a message that's important to you with groups of people you care about reaching in the world, there's no better way to reach them at scale.
2) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and daily user counts have only grown, including this last quarter.
3) Very few advertisers ended up cutting spend during the boycott. Many who did so wanted to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway. For instance, Unilever and Coca-Cola also paused Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with the boycott.
4) I myself believe that, at least in comparison to other companies like Google, Facebook does try to police hate speech, and it's a hard job.
1) Facebook's reach is unique. If you want to share a message that's important to you with groups of people you care about reaching in the world, there's no better way to reach them at scale.
2) Facebook has had a number of negative sounding news cycles in the past few years (Cambridge Analytica, etc.), and data shows that the average American hasn't changed their behavior based on them. 70% of all Americans and Canadians use Facebook or Instagram at least once a month, and 55% of all Americans and Canadians use it at least once per day. Facebook's monthly and daily user counts have only grown, including this last quarter.
3) Very few advertisers ended up cutting spend during the boycott. Many who did so wanted to cut ad spend in a COVID environment anyway. For instance, Unilever and Coca-Cola also paused Twitter ads, which has nothing to do with the boycott.
4) I myself believe that, at least in comparison to other companies like Google, Facebook does try to police hate speech, and it's a hard job.
1) Facebook is unique. But it is a costly way to reach a target group and usually the goal is to build other channels. Big brands are not looking to reach smaller targeted groups.
2) Daily users/monthly users is not really the stat worth tracking. That number was going to go up because of covid. I wonder about time spent on the site and time spent scrolling. That feels the important metric that has been dropping and tells a different story.
3) doesn't completely tell the story because if coke was cutting anyway that should show up
4) The differences on how each police hate speech doesn't really matter to anyone.
The real reason is 5: 5) Facebook raised prices for everyone else.
2) Daily users/monthly users is not really the stat worth tracking. That number was going to go up because of covid. I wonder about time spent on the site and time spent scrolling. That feels the important metric that has been dropping and tells a different story.
3) doesn't completely tell the story because if coke was cutting anyway that should show up
4) The differences on how each police hate speech doesn't really matter to anyone.
The real reason is 5: 5) Facebook raised prices for everyone else.
5) is objectively false, CPMs were down on average during this time period, mostly due to lower demand because of COVID.
Facebook runs a VCG auction and is transparent around how payment works on their site, so there's not really any way for them to "raise prices" singlehandedly outside of this mechanism without being legally liable.
Facebook runs a VCG auction and is transparent around how payment works on their site, so there's not really any way for them to "raise prices" singlehandedly outside of this mechanism without being legally liable.
[deleted]
This is exactly right. It was a way to get free advertising from cutting your advertising budget.
Two thoughts:
One, I remember a study back when cigarette companies were told they couldn't advertise on television that all major tobacco brands loved this because it meant they didn't have to spend any money on these types of ads. I'm sure there are versions of this all over the place in most marketing strategies.
Two, pardon my cynicism, but I'm sure companies model these things out and take action based on those models. No CEO is just like "yes, let's support a social cause." Randomly picking on a brand, but I'm sure Starbucks started flying a Pride Flag because it made sense to do so for the business.
One, I remember a study back when cigarette companies were told they couldn't advertise on television that all major tobacco brands loved this because it meant they didn't have to spend any money on these types of ads. I'm sure there are versions of this all over the place in most marketing strategies.
Two, pardon my cynicism, but I'm sure companies model these things out and take action based on those models. No CEO is just like "yes, let's support a social cause." Randomly picking on a brand, but I'm sure Starbucks started flying a Pride Flag because it made sense to do so for the business.
It probably depends on the industry and market. For cigarettes, they weren’t trying to make people aware of cigarettes, because everyone already knows what they are. The companies were simply fighting for market share, and were at a point where they had to advertise just to keep their market share.
It was a prisoners dilemma, where the whole industry could be more profitable by cutting advertising, but there was always an incentive to ‘defect’ and advertise your product.
The government banning the ads solved this problem for them.
It was a prisoners dilemma, where the whole industry could be more profitable by cutting advertising, but there was always an incentive to ‘defect’ and advertise your product.
The government banning the ads solved this problem for them.
The government taxes cigarettes within a nickel of affordability, so it's not really the cigarette companies who profited from this.
It's taxed beyond affordability in Canada already - at $12+ per pack, a pack-a-day smoker is spending $360/mo on smokes, which is not an insignificant chunk of change for many people. The number of people who I personally know for whom the cost was the driving factor in finally quitting is sizeable, and so it definitely works....
They do now, but there were decades of massive profit between the ad ban and the huge taxes. In the early 90s a carton was still like $10.
You're correct, government in the USA and Australia for instance, is massively profit-taking via the taxes to the point that they are taking in more revenue per pack than the tobacco companies.
Not sure the logic on that works outs. On the day ads are banned tobacco companies see a drop in their costs, but no change to revenue. The price of their cigarettes neither goes up or down.
Without a price change the government can’t benefit because the tax is proportional to the price.
So tobacco companies see a drop in costs, no change in revenue, which results in increased profits.
In the future the government could increase the tax rate, and try to force tobacco companies to drop prices to compensate, which could allow governments to extract the extra profits from reduced adverts. But that doesn’t strike me as the kind of behaviour governments participate in, a little too complicated and risky. Also very likely to have unforeseen consequences as it’s unlikely that every tobacco company was spending the same proportion of revenue on ads.
Not to say that tax rates didn’t go up. Just seems unlikely to be directly linked to the banning of ads. More likely they went up just because they can keep hiking the taxes until all the tobacco companies go bust.
Without a price change the government can’t benefit because the tax is proportional to the price.
So tobacco companies see a drop in costs, no change in revenue, which results in increased profits.
In the future the government could increase the tax rate, and try to force tobacco companies to drop prices to compensate, which could allow governments to extract the extra profits from reduced adverts. But that doesn’t strike me as the kind of behaviour governments participate in, a little too complicated and risky. Also very likely to have unforeseen consequences as it’s unlikely that every tobacco company was spending the same proportion of revenue on ads.
Not to say that tax rates didn’t go up. Just seems unlikely to be directly linked to the banning of ads. More likely they went up just because they can keep hiking the taxes until all the tobacco companies go bust.
And it also subsidizes tobacco farmers.
And why is it good for business? Because it reflects the moral values of their customers.
No, because ad-spend there was zero sum. If their competitors were going to advertise on TV, they had to too, and that made everyone make less money. It was a coordination problem that the government solved for them by banning it.
This is a fair point - I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that businesses follow along with societal change even if for profit, but I do think we give them too much credit for when they do act this way as if it’s entirely benevolent.
I’m 99% sure that Apple’s CEO really does care about LGBTQ rights...
In case anyone didn't get the reasoning. Tim Cook is gay.
Just because a person is gay doesn’t mean that they care about gay rights, especially if they are a billionaire, because nobody really impinges on a billionaire’s rights. As an analogy, say some anti-Semitism was spreading on Twitter and there was a Jewish CEO of Twitter who didn’t delete it. You couldn’t defend him by saying “he’s Jewish I’m 99% sure he cares about anti-Semitism” because if some thugs decide to beat up a random Jewish person on the street it just isn’t going to be the Twitter CEO.
(not making a statement about Tim Cook because I don’t know anything about his positions on gay rights)
(not making a statement about Tim Cook because I don’t know anything about his positions on gay rights)
Right, Tim Cook is no Peter Thiel.
Edit: Tim Cook has made numerous public statements in support of gay rights and being gay. My personal favorite: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/tech/tim-cook-gay-apple/index...
Edit: Tim Cook has made numerous public statements in support of gay rights and being gay. My personal favorite: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/tech/tim-cook-gay-apple/index...
> because nobody really impinges on a billionaire’s rights.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/world/oprah-winfrey-racism-sw...
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/world/oprah-winfrey-racism-sw...
OK, someone missed out on her fundamental human right to be shown a handbag. Not pleasant, but not a real worry.
This was just a literal case of billionaire being discriminated against.
The bigger point is having money doesn’t stop discrimination.
Someone called the cops on Ving Rhames for sitting in his own house.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/actor-ving-rhames-said-...
*I get up, I open the door, there's a red dot pointed at my face from a 9 millimeter, 'Put up your hands.'"
The bigger point is having money doesn’t stop discrimination.
Someone called the cops on Ving Rhames for sitting in his own house.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/actor-ving-rhames-said-...
*I get up, I open the door, there's a red dot pointed at my face from a 9 millimeter, 'Put up your hands.'"
When the execs in a company that cuts its ads spending makes that decision,
Do they say to each other: "let's pretend we're doing this for a good cause and that it's not just to save money. Let's say this: ... to the public and our customers"
Or do they tend to keep pretending, also when talking with each other in private meetings?
Do they say to each other: "let's pretend we're doing this for a good cause and that it's not just to save money. Let's say this: ... to the public and our customers"
Or do they tend to keep pretending, also when talking with each other in private meetings?
Cadbury's are reducing the size of some chocolate bars in the UK but in an insult to our intelligence put out a press release saying it was to "help combat obesity". They didn't shout so loudly that they were keeping prices the same.
I think they keep pretending internally but many think in the back of their head that it's all bogus and the real reason for the cut is slashed ad spend.
In any case, this situation reminds me of the time when Google exited China and said they were leaving due to censorship concerns. The real reason for leaving was that Baidu had gained an overwhelming share of the search market. I think at the time of Google leaving China, they had less than 5% market share.
In any case, this situation reminds me of the time when Google exited China and said they were leaving due to censorship concerns. The real reason for leaving was that Baidu had gained an overwhelming share of the search market. I think at the time of Google leaving China, they had less than 5% market share.
Why would they leave because of small market share? Costs and revenue scale with usage, and Google has near infinite money to invest in improvements.
Being under attack (not just a verbal attack) by the government seems more of a concern. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora
Being under attack (not just a verbal attack) by the government seems more of a concern. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora
From what I understand there was a massive, coordinated, and sustained cyberattack on Google's services that pretty clearly originated from the Chinese government that was interpreted as a pretty clear signal to get out of the Chinese market, along with what you outlined.
Yes. That was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
There had been a long string of problematic incidents before that which didn't come into the public though. Frustration and anger about China had been rising for years, and there was a very delicate power balance between Larry, Sergey and Eric going on in which Sergey didn't want to be there, Larry was sort of indifferent (if I recall correctly) and Eric very much wanted to be there. So it led to a lot of tension. When the huge hack happened, it ended up tipping things in Sergey's favour. Probably the lack of ability to make progress in China against Baidu, due almost exclusively due to the PRC's playing-field-tipping incidentally and not Baidu's skill, ended up stripping Eric of most of his intellectual ammo.
There had been a long string of problematic incidents before that which didn't come into the public though. Frustration and anger about China had been rising for years, and there was a very delicate power balance between Larry, Sergey and Eric going on in which Sergey didn't want to be there, Larry was sort of indifferent (if I recall correctly) and Eric very much wanted to be there. So it led to a lot of tension. When the huge hack happened, it ended up tipping things in Sergey's favour. Probably the lack of ability to make progress in China against Baidu, due almost exclusively due to the PRC's playing-field-tipping incidentally and not Baidu's skill, ended up stripping Eric of most of his intellectual ammo.
North Korea also got involved in that action.
I think they probably say something like "You know, during this pandemic we should probably cut our ad spend. Which area do you think we can cut that will cause the least harm during this time? Facebook? Ok, and as a side benefit, we get to say we're opposing hate speech. Decided, we're cutting our Facebook spend."
Throwaway account from an established HN person. I work with many of the top advertisers in the US. These are not simply PR positions that take advantage of lower marketing expenditures. Many of the top advertisers do not support Facebook’s current advertising and content policies. Would you as a savvy marketer turn off your top 1 or 2 channel instead of lower performing channels? Facebook is typically in the top for both branding and performance media. Wouldn’t the marketing teams save money and maintain healthy performance by shutting down other channels? Facebook has a closed marketplace that protects itself, and gives malevolent actors (certain advertisers) the power to manufacture misinformation at a global scale.
I have first-hand seen other channels soak up the FB funds during this time. It has been interesting to see the diversification into media that historically was not a major investment, because it under performed when compared to FB.
I have first-hand seen other channels soak up the FB funds during this time. It has been interesting to see the diversification into media that historically was not a major investment, because it under performed when compared to FB.
Is it the ad execs at company 1 & 2 calling the shots or is this a board level decision?
I believe your account, but I still wonder whether the opposition to FB is more about it having the power to upset the status quo and how that is a threat to these mega brands.
Given that every other channel is reporting decreases in revenue I'm going to ask you to provide some proof of this assertion. It should be fairly easy to find.
How can you actually tell which brand advertising channel works? From what I know about the CPG market, they historically couldn’t tell except via coupons in newspapers.
Sure.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In my experience (not advertising), this is how most organizations operate. Even non-profit or government ones. If a firm is conspicuously not advertising, they'll get some organic press and maybe goodwill.
I wonder how that boycott was set up and effectively put in place: disabling facebook pixels ? suspend posting on fb pages ? fire community managers ? suspending contracts with ad companies that sell pepsi/others space on the net to advertise ?
Just pausing spend (stopping campaigns in the ad manager. Typically an agency would be told to suspend the campaign and relevant creative (copywriting, art assets) budgets would be paused or diverted to support other media.
I see, hard to believe it was not just a PR and budget move then.
For a lot of these businesses relying on foot traffic, ads would be futile anyway during widespread lockdowns. So really just free point-grabbing.
This whole thing would've been avoided if Mark grew a pair and permanently banned the first companies who did this from ever using FB services again. I really hope he bans media companies who are trying to extort FB right now, the antics would be dropped quickly.
This whole thing would've been avoided if Mark grew a pair and permanently banned the first companies who did this from ever using FB services again. I really hope he bans media companies who are trying to extort FB right now, the antics would be dropped quickly.
That would be a terrible move. Nobody would want to work with a company that acts so childishly. It would also alienate all of the people who support the cause.
Facebook has not changed its policy with regards to hate speech as far as i'm aware, so these companies don't need to return to use FB services until it does. (Unless of course the protest was always meant as a 2 week gimmick at the expense of FB's reputation).
It appears other companies are acting potentially childishly. That doesn't mean it's a good move for Facebook to act childishly.
I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share!
> I hope those stupid compa ies would never come back to FB with their spending. Lack of blue chips on FB allowed SMBs to get cheaper ads on FB and their overall spending is bigger than blue chips so at the end FB benefited from this action. So those stupid companies are pu usher as their SMB competitors increases their market share!
Overall spending is bigger than blue chips? I feel like that's a citation needed. I've worked for companies spending 1 million+ on twitter advertising channel alone, so I'm curious how SMBs could get anywhere near close that level of spend in one channel per month forget about across multiple.
Overall spending is bigger than blue chips? I feel like that's a citation needed. I've worked for companies spending 1 million+ on twitter advertising channel alone, so I'm curious how SMBs could get anywhere near close that level of spend in one channel per month forget about across multiple.
There are a lot more SMBs than Fortune 500s.
Why ban them when you can ignore them at no cost and accept their money again in the future?
If the decision is beyond your control then letting clients go graciously is good for business. They might be in the market for your services again soon.
Could it be that the loudest and angriest twitter scolds actually represent ~0.0001% of the population and shouldn’t be immediately kowtowed to by our academic, cultural, and business leaders?
Yeah, it's pretty much this in a nutshell. That's what is eventually going to shut down this whole 'cancel culture' issue, when people realise that the vocal minority screaming for someone's head on social media sites is pretty much irrelevant on a business level, and can be safely ignored.
Trader Joe’s reversed their initial reaction to cancel their kitschy labels of trader Giottos and Joe-san, etc.[1]
“We do not make decisions based on petitions”
[1] https://www.boston.com/news/business/2020/07/31/trader-joes-...
“We do not make decisions based on petitions”
[1] https://www.boston.com/news/business/2020/07/31/trader-joes-...
That petition made national news at 2000 signatures.
2000 is virtually meaningless, in a country of 300 million people, and yet it was getting significant news coverage.
2000 is virtually meaningless, in a country of 300 million people, and yet it was getting significant news coverage.
> and yet it was getting significant news coverage
What's funny to me is, at least in my feed, these stories are shared most by people who use them to decry cancel culture. This in turn drives clicks to these stories and creates the demand for them, amplifying the impact of those 2,000 people in exactly the opposite way they intend to.
What's funny to me is, at least in my feed, these stories are shared most by people who use them to decry cancel culture. This in turn drives clicks to these stories and creates the demand for them, amplifying the impact of those 2,000 people in exactly the opposite way they intend to.
Lest this comment give anyone the impression that petition only received attention because people opposing cancel culture shared it, let me dispel that error - it was covered by the most prominent newspaper in the country: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/19/business/trader-joes-peti...
Was that article written after Trader Joe's responded to the petition? Or did Trader Joe's respond to the petition as part of that article being written?
Anyway, it's possible NYT wrote that article knowing it would be a hot-button article and would be shared widely by anti cancel culture people.
Anyway, it's possible NYT wrote that article knowing it would be a hot-button article and would be shared widely by anti cancel culture people.
NYT doesn't care who shares its articles as long as it gets the eyeballs. This is what got us here in the first place: click-optimized journalism.
And the ridiculous Goya boycott resulted in Goya selling even more.
This is the real problem. Media is amplifying the voice of what constitutes a handful of radicals to the national stage.
Those not privy are being brainwashed into kowtowing to the whims of the intolerant Twitter mob.
Those not privy are being brainwashed into kowtowing to the whims of the intolerant Twitter mob.
Has there been a look into which media companies were pushing these stories? I'm not pushing a conspiracy or anything, but just asking the logical question. This is how I judge any news in today's environment. If it was evenly covered, then that would be different than if just one like Sinclair or WaPo only kind of thing
>The petition posted on change.org by a high school student claims
So that whole thing was over something a high school student originally posted?
Not to generalize, but basing business decisions based on something a teenager posted on a website isn't necessarily going to lead to the best decisions.
So that whole thing was over something a high school student originally posted?
Not to generalize, but basing business decisions based on something a teenager posted on a website isn't necessarily going to lead to the best decisions.
I agree. But... How many people said that when Greta was making headlines while being sailed around the world?
Teenagers are almost exclusively idiots. By design. They have had almost zero life experience so when someone props them up, as experts or authorities or cares who they are offended on behalf of - I recoil pretty hard at that. Anyone that’s talked to a 16yo for more than a couple minutes knows they certainly shouldn’t be taking any advice from them.
Yet... get the world stage if the cause is good or “good”.
I’m not surprised a teenager’s petition almost effected changed at Trader Joe’s, I’m surprised it didn’t work. Good for them.
Teenagers are almost exclusively idiots. By design. They have had almost zero life experience so when someone props them up, as experts or authorities or cares who they are offended on behalf of - I recoil pretty hard at that. Anyone that’s talked to a 16yo for more than a couple minutes knows they certainly shouldn’t be taking any advice from them.
Yet... get the world stage if the cause is good or “good”.
I’m not surprised a teenager’s petition almost effected changed at Trader Joe’s, I’m surprised it didn’t work. Good for them.
At what age does one's opinion matter?
How old was the person who wrote in response "The packaging indicates it’s authentic to the country the recipe comes from!" ?
How old was the person who wrote in response "The packaging indicates it’s authentic to the country the recipe comes from!" ?
From the perspective of a business? Probably the age you start buying their products.
Not to be too cynical, but I doubt many companies give a damn what peoples opinions are, if those people aren’t buying their products, or if there isn’t a creditable threat those people will start to influence the opinions of people who do buy their products.
Not to be too cynical, but I doubt many companies give a damn what peoples opinions are, if those people aren’t buying their products, or if there isn’t a creditable threat those people will start to influence the opinions of people who do buy their products.
There is a decent reason we don't allow humans under a certain age to vote. Wisdom, some life experience, and maturity bolster one's credibility, all things being equal.
It's also easier to dismiss with how silly and unimportant (and in my opinion, wrong) their position is - and how obnoxious their self-perceived moral authority is.
Greta Thunberg was rather annoying from a "trotting out a teenager for political purposes" but at least in that case, the moral argument and the "generational" nature of climate change make more sense to see a minor push the issue.
It's also easier to dismiss with how silly and unimportant (and in my opinion, wrong) their position is - and how obnoxious their self-perceived moral authority is.
Greta Thunberg was rather annoying from a "trotting out a teenager for political purposes" but at least in that case, the moral argument and the "generational" nature of climate change make more sense to see a minor push the issue.
Old enough to vote, smoke, enlist in the military etc. That age where we consider people adults and capable of thinking and doing things for themselves such as dying for their country or having the opportunity to vote on the way they believe their country should be run.
ars(1)
It's often journalists the ones blowing dumb stuff out of proportion because an article about a couple people saying outrageous stuff (even if it's the ~0.0001% of the population that you state) brings eyeballs and keeps the addictive outrageous cycle up. It's the sad state of social networks and most of the journalism nowadays. Luckily you're not forced to read any of those if you don't want.
Its basically the same as news shows grabbing random people off the street for their opinion. Except with twitter you don't see the person and it just becomes "Twitter is saying this" which feels very important and official.
I've deleted Twitter. In an economic depression and election year its become a very very dark place. I'm immediately less anxious.
Wondering if others feel this way?
Twitter used to feel like a positive place. But after 2016 it took a dark turn. Trends are overwhelmingly negative, and the platform pushes politics non stop. In the past topics were more varied, divided into categories like tech, or science or music. I just can't escape the political rage promoted by the platform.
Twitter used to feel like a positive place. But after 2016 it took a dark turn. Trends are overwhelmingly negative, and the platform pushes politics non stop. In the past topics were more varied, divided into categories like tech, or science or music. I just can't escape the political rage promoted by the platform.
The thing is that it's very hard, psychologically, to do that. We evolved our social instincts in small roaming bands. When ten or twenty people in such a band attack you, that's tantamount to the whole band turning against you --- and in the nomadic band context, ejection from the group is death. Of course you feel fear when people scream at you and claim you're unfit to be a member of society. Of course you try to address the criticism. Of course you try to be re-accepted into the group.
But now we live on a planet with almost eight billion people screaming at each other. The criticism of a few means nothing. The old heuristic of counting critics to get a proxy for the opinion of the group doesn't work anymore. But we still fear the rejection of the group, and at some level, deep down, we still interpret an attack from a few people as evidence of deep unpopularity.
Rejecting this instinct is essential for participation in a global conversation. It doesn't come naturally to us, but it can be learned --- just as you can train yourself out of a fear of spiders or heights. It looks like at least some corporate leaders have started to learn the essential skill of not fearing social media loudmouths.
But now we live on a planet with almost eight billion people screaming at each other. The criticism of a few means nothing. The old heuristic of counting critics to get a proxy for the opinion of the group doesn't work anymore. But we still fear the rejection of the group, and at some level, deep down, we still interpret an attack from a few people as evidence of deep unpopularity.
Rejecting this instinct is essential for participation in a global conversation. It doesn't come naturally to us, but it can be learned --- just as you can train yourself out of a fear of spiders or heights. It looks like at least some corporate leaders have started to learn the essential skill of not fearing social media loudmouths.
Companies should be accountable to their customers, not activists.
Tell that to Microsoft who removed the santa hat from Visual Studio Code due to one user. Ironically the issue currently has 18 down-votes.
https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268
https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/87268
>The Santa Hat on vscode insiders and pushing of religion is very offensive to me, additionally xmas has cost millions of Jews their lives over the centuries, yet even if that was not the case, pushing religious symbols as part of a product update is completely unacceptable. Please remove it immediately and make it your top priority. To me this is almost equally offensive as a swastika.
That comment...it's really hard not to take that as a troll comment...
That comment...it's really hard not to take that as a troll comment...
Poe's Law strikes again. It is scary to see how swiftly Microsoft acted here, it seems like malicious actors could easily weaponize this.
> it seems like malicious actors could easily weaponize this.
This is exactly what happened to the "OK" hand symbol, which people have lost jobs over: It was a 4chan prank. There were alternate suggestions for what a bunch of different common hand symbols could mean, and this was the only one that caught on mainstream.
This is exactly what happened to the "OK" hand symbol, which people have lost jobs over: It was a 4chan prank. There were alternate suggestions for what a bunch of different common hand symbols could mean, and this was the only one that caught on mainstream.
They already did, years ago!
Indeed, waiting a bit would have been a reasonable thing to do, instead the change was sanctioned on the same day.
The Santa Hat change most likely also made it so much easier to move forward with the renaming of the master branch on GitHub. One could also argue that the master branch name should have been changed back in 2014 in connection with the Ferguson unrest and the killing of Michael Brown.
Source: https://github.com/github/renaming
The Santa Hat change most likely also made it so much easier to move forward with the renaming of the master branch on GitHub. One could also argue that the master branch name should have been changed back in 2014 in connection with the Ferguson unrest and the killing of Michael Brown.
Source: https://github.com/github/renaming
Do you really think replacing the hat with a snowflake was coincidence?
At my previous company, one user complained very loudly that our documentation used the word "execute" in the context of executing a program or a script. They sent the CEO a very lengthy email about how it was vile and conjured images of horrible death.
A Jira ticket was filed the next morning to change all instances of "execute" to "run".
A Jira ticket was filed the next morning to change all instances of "execute" to "run".
depends on the nature of the problems those companies cause. If they're negative externalities then customer behaviour is of little value, say for example environmental damage caused by meat consumption, pollution and so on.
The negative effects of social media tend to be environmental in that sense, threats to national security, destruction of the political climate, negative effects on minorities and so on aren't felt by most customers. The negative behaviour of companies like Facebook affects the commons, not individual customers.
The negative effects of social media tend to be environmental in that sense, threats to national security, destruction of the political climate, negative effects on minorities and so on aren't felt by most customers. The negative behaviour of companies like Facebook affects the commons, not individual customers.
There's no mention of 'kowtowing', twitter or anything of the sort anywhere in the article. You can look up who the organizers of the boycott are, they have a web page. Makes you wonder who the 'loudest and angriest scolds' actually are.
Whether or not that is true, this boycott doesn’t indicate that. The boycott was organized by activists, but the boycott was advertisers not purchasing ads on Facebook. The reason it had little effect on revenue was indicated in the article, while the boycott was made up of the largest advertisers in the world, they weren’t responsible for the majority of Facebook’s revenue in the first place.
I mean can you think of a single recent example of any business hurting due to a boycott? Yeah, it is the cheaper and easier option for the board but the degree that literally every public company seems beholden to the demands of unhinged Twitter users is absurd.
2019
MAY: Brunei announced that it would not impose the death penalty for those convicted of having annal sex, following boycott calls. The decision followed international condemnation of the country’s decision to roll out strict laws making anal sex, adultery and rape punishable by stoning to death.
Celebrities such as Elton John and George Clooney had called for a boycott of the Dorchester Collection, a chain of hotels owned by the Sultan of the country, which includes The Dorchester and 45 Park Lane in London.1 Several large companies including JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank followed suit, telling their staff to avoid Brunei-owned hotels in the wake of the new laws.
2018 JANUARY: The Body Shop successfully ended, after the company's owner declared itself cruelty-free. Natura, which bought the high-street chain in 2017, announced a clear animal testing policy after hundreds of consumers wrote to the company. Naturewatch lifted the boycott call, after 11 years of campaigning, and has invited both Natura and The Body Shop to join its list for cruelty-free cosmetics brands.
FEBRUARY: Multiple companies cut ties with the NRA, following boycott calls.
Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Hertz, Budget, Avis, Best Western and Wyndham Hotels all stated that they would no longer offer discounts or other special offers for NRA members. The insurer Chubb dropped cover for NRA Carry Guard insurance. Enterprise Rent–A–Car announced that is was severing ties. First National Bank of Omaha stated that it would end a Visa credit card it offered with NRA branding. The companies all faced boycotts for their links to the NRA after the association called for teachers to be armed and spoke out against student gun control activists, in the wake of the Parkland high school shooting.
JULY: Ivanka Trump closed her fashion brand, after boycotts from consumers following her father's election. The brand was a target of the Boycott Trump campaign due to Ivanka's links with the President and her own role as a senior adviser. According to the Wall Street Journal, which cited research from Rakuten Intelligence, online sales of the brand at Amazon, Macy's and Bloomingdales fell almost 45% in the year to June. Several retailers also dropped the brand.
The Irish Senate approved a bill that would ban the import of goods from the Palestinian occupied territories. If the bill passes Ireland’s lower house it will set a precedent within the EU. The Act will prohibit “trade with and economic support for illegal settlements in territories deemed occupied under international law”, which would make Ireland the first EU country to introduce a national boycott of Israeli-settlement goods. The bill does not name Israel but instead refers to “occupying powers” and “illegal settlements” – both terms that the Israeli settlement fulfil under UN law.
SEPTEMBER: Burberry announces that it will join Armani, Versace, Gucci, Vivienne Westwood, Stella McCartney, and others in banning fur after a long-running boycott campaign from animal rights group PETA.
DECEMBER: HSBC announced that it had fully divested from the Israeli drone manufacturer Elbit Systems, known for selling weapons to the Israeli military used in attacks on Palestinian civilians.
Elbit Systems has been the target of a long-running divestment campaign for supplying surveillance systems and other technology to Israel’s Separation Wall and settlements in the West Bank as well as for the US-Mexico boarder. The company has also manufactured the white phosphorous and artillery systems that can be used for cluster munitions. More than 24,000 War on Want supporters emailed HSBC asking the company to end its investments in Elbit Systems and other arms companies selling to the Israeli military.
Cartier pledged to stop buying gems from Myanmar and gemstone exports from the country fell 65% during the course of 2017. Human rights activists called for jewellers to boycott gemstones mined in Myanmar, which are funding the country’s military.
Myanmar’s military dominates the country’s gemstone industry, with military-affiliated companies controlling distribution of licensing and permits and running gem auctions that raise hundreds of millions of dollars. The long-running campaign, led by SumofUS and The International Campaign for the Rohingya, responds to the military’s attacks on communities of Rohingya Muslims in the country.
Celebrities such as Elton John and George Clooney had called for a boycott of the Dorchester Collection, a chain of hotels owned by the Sultan of the country, which includes The Dorchester and 45 Park Lane in London.1 Several large companies including JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank followed suit, telling their staff to avoid Brunei-owned hotels in the wake of the new laws.
2018 JANUARY: The Body Shop successfully ended, after the company's owner declared itself cruelty-free. Natura, which bought the high-street chain in 2017, announced a clear animal testing policy after hundreds of consumers wrote to the company. Naturewatch lifted the boycott call, after 11 years of campaigning, and has invited both Natura and The Body Shop to join its list for cruelty-free cosmetics brands.
FEBRUARY: Multiple companies cut ties with the NRA, following boycott calls.
Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Hertz, Budget, Avis, Best Western and Wyndham Hotels all stated that they would no longer offer discounts or other special offers for NRA members. The insurer Chubb dropped cover for NRA Carry Guard insurance. Enterprise Rent–A–Car announced that is was severing ties. First National Bank of Omaha stated that it would end a Visa credit card it offered with NRA branding. The companies all faced boycotts for their links to the NRA after the association called for teachers to be armed and spoke out against student gun control activists, in the wake of the Parkland high school shooting.
JULY: Ivanka Trump closed her fashion brand, after boycotts from consumers following her father's election. The brand was a target of the Boycott Trump campaign due to Ivanka's links with the President and her own role as a senior adviser. According to the Wall Street Journal, which cited research from Rakuten Intelligence, online sales of the brand at Amazon, Macy's and Bloomingdales fell almost 45% in the year to June. Several retailers also dropped the brand.
The Irish Senate approved a bill that would ban the import of goods from the Palestinian occupied territories. If the bill passes Ireland’s lower house it will set a precedent within the EU. The Act will prohibit “trade with and economic support for illegal settlements in territories deemed occupied under international law”, which would make Ireland the first EU country to introduce a national boycott of Israeli-settlement goods. The bill does not name Israel but instead refers to “occupying powers” and “illegal settlements” – both terms that the Israeli settlement fulfil under UN law.
SEPTEMBER: Burberry announces that it will join Armani, Versace, Gucci, Vivienne Westwood, Stella McCartney, and others in banning fur after a long-running boycott campaign from animal rights group PETA.
DECEMBER: HSBC announced that it had fully divested from the Israeli drone manufacturer Elbit Systems, known for selling weapons to the Israeli military used in attacks on Palestinian civilians.
Elbit Systems has been the target of a long-running divestment campaign for supplying surveillance systems and other technology to Israel’s Separation Wall and settlements in the West Bank as well as for the US-Mexico boarder. The company has also manufactured the white phosphorous and artillery systems that can be used for cluster munitions. More than 24,000 War on Want supporters emailed HSBC asking the company to end its investments in Elbit Systems and other arms companies selling to the Israeli military.
Cartier pledged to stop buying gems from Myanmar and gemstone exports from the country fell 65% during the course of 2017. Human rights activists called for jewellers to boycott gemstones mined in Myanmar, which are funding the country’s military.
Myanmar’s military dominates the country’s gemstone industry, with military-affiliated companies controlling distribution of licensing and permits and running gem auctions that raise hundreds of millions of dollars. The long-running campaign, led by SumofUS and The International Campaign for the Rohingya, responds to the military’s attacks on communities of Rohingya Muslims in the country.
I think the request was for boycotts that actually caused the business to shutter or seriously change tack, not simply a list of boycotts. In that list, only Ivanka Trump would seem to qualify.
activists, the kind of people who organize these boycotts, represent a small slice of the population, but the opinions they are pushing (that facebook has a pretty bad problem with spreading hate speech) definitely has broad support.
From my perspective tons of advertisers stopped spending in late Feb/March across multiple channels, not only Facebook. This was necessary for advertisers to re-evaluate how they would allocate their budget and change their messaging. Things are back in full force now.
I get the feeling that some companies were just posturing with the Facebook boycott, and planned on decreasing their ad spending regardless.
I get the feeling that some companies were just posturing with the Facebook boycott, and planned on decreasing their ad spending regardless.
This is it. It was nothing but a PR explanation of an already planned budget cut.
also, I have never seen adds on facebook from most of those boycotting companies.
Aren't Facebook ads essentially a perfect market (in the economic sense) if done properly? Even if someone drops out, there would be someone with a slightly lower bid just behind them.
That's a pretty interesting question.
I would have said no. But I can't think why.
Certainly Youtube and the other big monopolies behave like they are not a perfect market.
Every now and again you'll see an article saying it's not known if advertising on the Internet even works that well.
So the opinion is information around advertising is not really fluid enough, not sure in practice.
I would have said no. But I can't think why.
Certainly Youtube and the other big monopolies behave like they are not a perfect market.
Every now and again you'll see an article saying it's not known if advertising on the Internet even works that well.
So the opinion is information around advertising is not really fluid enough, not sure in practice.
The bit on internet advertising not working that well is interesting given that all the startups I know can tell you (to the cent) what it costs to acquire a customer.
Perhaps that number provides a false sense of understanding and control and there is an information bias towards it over harder to analyze types of advertising such as radio, but it seems like the ROI for internet advertising would be the most clear.
Perhaps that number provides a false sense of understanding and control and there is an information bias towards it over harder to analyze types of advertising such as radio, but it seems like the ROI for internet advertising would be the most clear.
My understanding is that the average of average costs to obtain a customer is relatively unchanged over the years. Even going back to well before the internet existed, the numbers are relatively equal.
So we have all these platform vacuuming up massive volumes of personal data so that companies and organizations can target individuals with surgical precision.... and it might not be any more effective on the aggregate than traditional advertising in the 60s.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20171.pdf
So we have all these platform vacuuming up massive volumes of personal data so that companies and organizations can target individuals with surgical precision.... and it might not be any more effective on the aggregate than traditional advertising in the 60s.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20171.pdf
Indeed, when one big advertiser defects, the remaining advertisers get cheaper ads which should lead to more conversions
What is a perfect market? What is FB advertising "done properly"?
I don't believe FB is a perfect marketplace because there are too many powerful interests with their thumbs on the scale. If Zuckerberg and crew were actually impartial and objective and wanted a perfect market, which they don't, even if they did want it...could they make it? Where is the line between marketing, lying, up-selling, persuasion, and truth?
I don't believe FB is a perfect marketplace because there are too many powerful interests with their thumbs on the scale. If Zuckerberg and crew were actually impartial and objective and wanted a perfect market, which they don't, even if they did want it...could they make it? Where is the line between marketing, lying, up-selling, persuasion, and truth?
The term I should have used was "efficient market." Basically, because of the bid system and assuming that companies are testing different prices, prices for ads should be relatively efficient.
I was not commenting on the content on the ads, just the pricing of them.
I was not commenting on the content on the ads, just the pricing of them.
Aren't they the farthest possible thing? There is literally one entity (Facebook) controlling the supply (human beings with dopamine addictions).
There is one supplier, but they almost function like a stock exchange or an auction house. You place per unit bids for actions/types of people and depending on what you bid, your ad gets shown to to different people.
You would think that bids would eventually become quite economically efficient simply because of how easily conversion can be tracked.
You would think that bids would eventually become quite economically efficient simply because of how easily conversion can be tracked.
Obviously.
Perhaps those companies in this 'boycott' did themselves a favour by saving money to get by the mounted losses due to the pandemic. Pausing advertising subscriptions to save some money rather than trying to pressurise Facebook to do a u-turn.
This stunt changes absolutely nothing.
Perhaps those companies in this 'boycott' did themselves a favour by saving money to get by the mounted losses due to the pandemic. Pausing advertising subscriptions to save some money rather than trying to pressurise Facebook to do a u-turn.
This stunt changes absolutely nothing.
Considering this, was the tech and other media coverage of the "boycott" fair or accurate? Really looks like it was agenda-driven activism itself.
[deleted]
I never understood the appeal of decentralized social media platforms until now. How does it make sense for large centralized platforms to police their platform for every little thing that the current social environment finds unacceptable? People should be able to organize themselves into groups as they see fit and no unilateral decision should have final say in a global community's thoughts and discussions
One month was always going to be too little. FB can ride it all out, and if I take a step back I wonder if they can be moved with financial attacks at all. I feel the greatest weaknesses they have, and which they can't defend against, are with reputation and MAUs.
The twitter mob can boycott Facebook all they want, for a month or a year, but the vast majority of people and businesses will go on using it because that makes no difference to them.
Boycotts are always limited in time and scope because if the product wasn't useful you wouldn't need to boycott it, you'd just ignore it in perpetuity. Like, I'm not "boycotting" natural fur clothing for the 20th year, I'm just not interested.
Facebook is useful to both people and businesses and will continue to be useful regardless of any boycotts. Maybe not to some tiny minority of people, but to everyone else.
There are tons of companies that survive with shitty business practices that have much weaker market position than Facebook.
Boycotts are always limited in time and scope because if the product wasn't useful you wouldn't need to boycott it, you'd just ignore it in perpetuity. Like, I'm not "boycotting" natural fur clothing for the 20th year, I'm just not interested.
Facebook is useful to both people and businesses and will continue to be useful regardless of any boycotts. Maybe not to some tiny minority of people, but to everyone else.
There are tons of companies that survive with shitty business practices that have much weaker market position than Facebook.
Well I don't think FB is so fungible as a market participant that they can be excused via relative privation[1]. They have close proximity to the lives of a lot of people, and the content that appears on their pages plays a prominent role in society, or at least the FB userbase. To be sure, sometimes its role in society is a result of splash damage.
Facebook's grandeur is on display constantly, both in its expansive view of its business model competing against winking at someone on the bus, to the intransigence they express in resisting (if not refusing) any modification to their behavior. They're have toddler-mentality management, and it's a problem that the stock market rewards it.
You don't have power over the fur industry by yourself. The purpose of boycotts is to spread, they aren't a state of being, and in your terms they could be said to be practice in ignoring something. "See? You can go without it."
People and businesses still have MySpace pages, Friendster accounts, and all the kinds of powerless internet presence about which people like to say Facebook is immune, but the future isn't written yet. It stands to reason that Facebook could be the Penny Saver of the future, a webboard for people with online social inertia (I know of webboards that continue beyond decades with much more traffic than a lot of Facebook groups) and a place where yes, your business needs to put up a page.
Facebook would love to be indispensible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they secretly want regulation (on their own terms, of course) because historically that is one method businesses can use to permanently implant themselves in the social fabric. Global reach complicates this, but with the TikTok controversy in the US right now[2], the world may wake up to regional restrictions on business access to individual nations (don't call it a Great Firewall) and we might wake up one day to find Facebook banned in the EU (for example) for their data practices.
There are plenty of smaller social networks in the EU that don't have the problems FB does, and I don't think the users would miss anything more than being asked to friend a friend's friend that you met once (if at all). Everybody would know they have a month or three and in that time everybody sends everybody "I'm @abc123 on $somesite, and @xyz456 on $somesite2." Much easier than the old days of updating paper address books.
And that's the illusion: that there's anything to miss, that it'll be difficult to maintain contact with people. All of the people you know online will still be online somewhere, and you know what? Email still exists. Facebook isn't indispensible.
1. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relativ...
2. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
Facebook's grandeur is on display constantly, both in its expansive view of its business model competing against winking at someone on the bus, to the intransigence they express in resisting (if not refusing) any modification to their behavior. They're have toddler-mentality management, and it's a problem that the stock market rewards it.
You don't have power over the fur industry by yourself. The purpose of boycotts is to spread, they aren't a state of being, and in your terms they could be said to be practice in ignoring something. "See? You can go without it."
People and businesses still have MySpace pages, Friendster accounts, and all the kinds of powerless internet presence about which people like to say Facebook is immune, but the future isn't written yet. It stands to reason that Facebook could be the Penny Saver of the future, a webboard for people with online social inertia (I know of webboards that continue beyond decades with much more traffic than a lot of Facebook groups) and a place where yes, your business needs to put up a page.
Facebook would love to be indispensible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they secretly want regulation (on their own terms, of course) because historically that is one method businesses can use to permanently implant themselves in the social fabric. Global reach complicates this, but with the TikTok controversy in the US right now[2], the world may wake up to regional restrictions on business access to individual nations (don't call it a Great Firewall) and we might wake up one day to find Facebook banned in the EU (for example) for their data practices.
There are plenty of smaller social networks in the EU that don't have the problems FB does, and I don't think the users would miss anything more than being asked to friend a friend's friend that you met once (if at all). Everybody would know they have a month or three and in that time everybody sends everybody "I'm @abc123 on $somesite, and @xyz456 on $somesite2." Much easier than the old days of updating paper address books.
And that's the illusion: that there's anything to miss, that it'll be difficult to maintain contact with people. All of the people you know online will still be online somewhere, and you know what? Email still exists. Facebook isn't indispensible.
1. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Relativ...
2. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
This boycott generally is a signal to competitors that let’s not compete at this time where our revenue may impact. The competitors can’t have a meeting about it so this is how they signal each other. If the company competitors follow would mean you are both going maximize your profits e.g raise prices or not cut them via promotions. During the pandemic the sales of Pepsi and coke are already hurting due to commercial sales.
Ad spend for say 5-6 months from Each might be as big as 100-200 million at best.
Ad spend for say 5-6 months from Each might be as big as 100-200 million at best.
Look like Ben Thompson was right when he predicted the end outcome of this on Facebook's revenue [1]. He looked at the financials and noted that the real players on Facebook were the small companies looking to leverage the scale and automation of Facebook to pull customers away from the big players in ways that were never possible. He predicted that once the big players pulled out, automation would kick in, buying prices would be lowered, and spends by small players looking to take advantage of this would be more likely to go up. Fascinating to see how this has eventually played out.
[1] https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/ (scroll down to "Facebook’s Anti-Fragility" to read the relevant section
[1] https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-and-facebook/ (scroll down to "Facebook’s Anti-Fragility" to read the relevant section
Facebook hate-speech boycott had little effect on revenue.
You'll notice the article does a good job at mentioning related and mitigating factors (such as "growth was higher the the expectations of some analysts" and "there was also a slowdown in ad revenue due to the pandemic"). But it offers no data whatsoever to directly support its central claim:
"The boycott had little effect on revenue".
Then again, this wasn't a "news article" in the regular sense. Consider the site that it was hosted on, and their overall business model.
You'll notice the article does a good job at mentioning related and mitigating factors (such as "growth was higher the the expectations of some analysts" and "there was also a slowdown in ad revenue due to the pandemic"). But it offers no data whatsoever to directly support its central claim:
"The boycott had little effect on revenue".
Then again, this wasn't a "news article" in the regular sense. Consider the site that it was hosted on, and their overall business model.
[deleted]
Expected since the uptick in ad money came from all the smid companies going full e-commerce as well as new categories such as masks.
Good, twitter ethics are illiberal and should be taken seriously. The big problem with ideas are who the judge is and it always tilts towards tyranny.
It takes two—advertisers and us using Facebook—in order for Facebook to make money. Advertisers are only on Facebook because we are on Facebook. Facebook won't change until people start leaving it.
That's why I'm leaving it on September 1. I created a special page on my website and a drip marketing campaign for my friends on Facebook: https://www.jeremiahlee.com/posts/delete-facebook/
That's why I'm leaving it on September 1. I created a special page on my website and a drip marketing campaign for my friends on Facebook: https://www.jeremiahlee.com/posts/delete-facebook/
Why the downvotes?
Facebook has our attention, they built their platform to scale rapidly and hold our attention effectively. Now, they are a massive force with 9 million advertisers. 9 MILLION advertisers, all vying for the attention platform they have built.
opqpo(1)
I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech.
Instead we are basically begging Facebook to be the one who makes this kind of judgement. Obviously, Facebook doesn't want to do that. Nobody wants to do that.
I'm not talking about obviously blatant cases. I'm talking about a high profile one like Trump tweeting something bad.
Even a senate/former lawyer like Elizabeth Warren doesn't ask for a due justice process. She is also screaming at Facebook to just take down Trump's posts.
I imagine, if what Trump posts is extremely bad and illegal, it won't be hard to prosecute him or get a court order to ban or take down his posts.
(Apology for inaccurate language usage. I'm not familiar with these legal terms. But I hope you get the main idea)
Instead we are basically begging Facebook to be the one who makes this kind of judgement. Obviously, Facebook doesn't want to do that. Nobody wants to do that.
I'm not talking about obviously blatant cases. I'm talking about a high profile one like Trump tweeting something bad.
Even a senate/former lawyer like Elizabeth Warren doesn't ask for a due justice process. She is also screaming at Facebook to just take down Trump's posts.
I imagine, if what Trump posts is extremely bad and illegal, it won't be hard to prosecute him or get a court order to ban or take down his posts.
(Apology for inaccurate language usage. I'm not familiar with these legal terms. But I hope you get the main idea)
It depends on what you mean by a justice process, but there is one already. In the U.S. the right to free speech is pretty securely enshrined in law (knocks wood). There are definitely limits to the first amendment, but speaking very broadly, private institutions can do more to limit speech on their platforms, whereas the justice system's role is to protect speech. Taking it out of the hands of Facebook (et al.) probably would not get you what you're after.
It's a tough problem.
Imagine going out to a bar and some nazi walks in and starts screaming about this or that group that they hate. At the top of his lungs.
Most places would kick his ass right out.
Those that didn't, the customers would probably leave.
Social media is a bit more complex than all that, but in some cases, it really is like that bar where the guy stays, and invites his buddies, and no one normal wants to go there.
Imagine going out to a bar and some nazi walks in and starts screaming about this or that group that they hate. At the top of his lungs.
Most places would kick his ass right out.
Those that didn't, the customers would probably leave.
Social media is a bit more complex than all that, but in some cases, it really is like that bar where the guy stays, and invites his buddies, and no one normal wants to go there.
The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal. We have a strong constitutional prohibition against censorship.
Many activists would prefer that we didn't have this prohibition, but they don't have the political clout to get it repealed --- rightly so, because despite everything that's happened, explicit censorship is very unpopular.
Because the activists can't get the state to censor the public, activists have used increasingly underhanded tactics to get tech companies to censor the public. They've been very successful so far, but there's a growing resistance to their antics.
Many activists would prefer that we didn't have this prohibition, but they don't have the political clout to get it repealed --- rightly so, because despite everything that's happened, explicit censorship is very unpopular.
Because the activists can't get the state to censor the public, activists have used increasingly underhanded tactics to get tech companies to censor the public. They've been very successful so far, but there's a growing resistance to their antics.
One of the most successful PR strategies Facebook has used throughout this is to position it as a free speech issue and the boycott as calling on them to censor speech. It's been so successful that I've seen it repeated a number of times on HN.
To the extent that they can make the argument free speech vs. not free speech, of course they win hearts and minds, because as you say, censorship isn't very popular.
The problem is that by making this all about censorship, they can ignore any responsibility they for harm they create in other ways. For example, creating incentives for publishers to create divisive content for the sake of enraging people, or recommending people join white supremacy groups. As far as I can tell, it was these sorts of measures that the boycott organizers called for.
The cynicism of Facebook's PR “free speech” stance is especially annoying given their arbitrary and non-transparent block of Dreamwith a few weeks ago[2]
1. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-employ...
2. https://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/3861716.html
To the extent that they can make the argument free speech vs. not free speech, of course they win hearts and minds, because as you say, censorship isn't very popular.
The problem is that by making this all about censorship, they can ignore any responsibility they for harm they create in other ways. For example, creating incentives for publishers to create divisive content for the sake of enraging people, or recommending people join white supremacy groups. As far as I can tell, it was these sorts of measures that the boycott organizers called for.
The cynicism of Facebook's PR “free speech” stance is especially annoying given their arbitrary and non-transparent block of Dreamwith a few weeks ago[2]
1. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-employ...
2. https://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/3861716.html
> create divisive content
I'll quote a paragraph of http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
> We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention.
The most interesting part is that the content that was classified as "divisive" when that essay was wrote is not the same that is classified as "divisive" now.
I'll quote a paragraph of http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
> We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention.
The most interesting part is that the content that was classified as "divisive" when that essay was wrote is not the same that is classified as "divisive" now.
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." -- Thomas Sowell (who, ironically, is the topic of a similar fight about free speech on a different HN thread right now).
Whatever you want to label it, surely I'm not the only one who has observed that the best way to get an article shared on social media is to amp up how controversial it is. Then people who agree share it to agree with it, and people who are enraged by it share it because they are enraged by it.
Whether you want to call this “divisive content” (which definition fits it pretty neatly, in spite of PG's good essay) or “scissor statements” or something else is up to you, but it's a real phenomenon.
Whether you want to call this “divisive content” (which definition fits it pretty neatly, in spite of PG's good essay) or “scissor statements” or something else is up to you, but it's a real phenomenon.
I agree, but I prefer to call them "flamewar topics".
It is not only used in social media sites, it is also used be journalist in newspaper and TV. (Sometimes it is more evident is the sport section. Every time the national soccer team lose a match, there is a tempest in a teapot about each one of the decisions of the team manager and the players.)
It is not only used in social media sites, it is also used be journalist in newspaper and TV. (Sometimes it is more evident is the sport section. Every time the national soccer team lose a match, there is a tempest in a teapot about each one of the decisions of the team manager and the players.)
The implication is that if it's not false, it must be true.
But that does not follow. Mostly, when people have trouble calling something false, it's because it is obviously ambiguous and the meaning is disputed. The point of words like "inappropriate" and "divisive" is to shift to something less easily disputed.
But that does not follow. Mostly, when people have trouble calling something false, it's because it is obviously ambiguous and the meaning is disputed. The point of words like "inappropriate" and "divisive" is to shift to something less easily disputed.
But we all agree that hate speech should be punished by laws though, and it currently is punishable.
It's that Facebook shouldn't be the one who makes that judgement.
And that's my point. We should get a court to make that judgement.
It's that Facebook shouldn't be the one who makes that judgement.
And that's my point. We should get a court to make that judgement.
But we all agree that hate speech should be punished by laws though, and it currently is punishable.
We don't, and it isn't, at least not in the US.
We don't, and it isn't, at least not in the US.
It is sometimes punishable by federal law https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-...
No, we don't all agree on that. That's my entire point. The position you're espousing is not shared by a big enough fraction of the US public to get the country's free speech protections overturned, so you're just going to have to deal with people saying things you dislike.
Do you not know what is happening in Hong Kong right now? You don't let the government decide what is "hate speech" and what is not.
On the flip side, you don't let Facebook decide that as well.
As a society, there doesn't seem to be a solution.
As a society, there doesn't seem to be a solution.
Freedom of speech is the solution.
If FB wants to decide that what I say is not allowed on their platform and consequently ban me, that's fine by me. It's their platform, so their rules. Very different from a government banning speech, and hauling people away to be tortured like in China's case.
You make it sound like, since it's a private business, they can impose any rule they want.
I don't think I agree with that.
I don't think I agree with that.
Among the organizers' 10 headline demands (https://www.stophateforprofit.org/productrecommendations) are:
4. Find and remove public and private groups focused on white supremacy, militia, antisemitism, violent conspiracies, Holocaust denialism, vaccine misinformation, and climate denialism.
6. Stop recommending or otherwise amplifying groups or content from groups associated with hate, misinformation or conspiracies to users.
7. Create an internal mechanism to automatically flag hateful content in private groups for human review. Private groups are not small gatherings of friends - but can be hundreds of thousands of people large, which many hateful groups are.
So while they do want other things as well, the censorship seems like a pretty central part of the platform.
4. Find and remove public and private groups focused on white supremacy, militia, antisemitism, violent conspiracies, Holocaust denialism, vaccine misinformation, and climate denialism.
6. Stop recommending or otherwise amplifying groups or content from groups associated with hate, misinformation or conspiracies to users.
7. Create an internal mechanism to automatically flag hateful content in private groups for human review. Private groups are not small gatherings of friends - but can be hundreds of thousands of people large, which many hateful groups are.
So while they do want other things as well, the censorship seems like a pretty central part of the platform.
Fair point, I'd agree that 4 and 7 verge on censorship (I'm less convinced about 6 -- I draw a line between functions that Facebook performs as a content transmitter and as a discovery platform. I would argue that disrupting content transmission constitutes censorship, but curating the discovery platform does not.)
Still, it gets to my point that 7 or (arguably) 8 of the 10 demands do not directly call for censorship.
Still, it gets to my point that 7 or (arguably) 8 of the 10 demands do not directly call for censorship.
For number 4, who should make the judgement whether a speech falls into that category though.
Should it be Facebook or our justice system?
I'd rather not have Facebook do that.
Should it be Facebook or our justice system?
I'd rather not have Facebook do that.
It can't be our justice system without a constitutional ammendment - which leaves just Facebook.
Then, pushing for an amendment would be the right approach and far better than having Facebook be a judge.
Using Facebook as a judge becomes more like popularity contest with who can scream the loudest and are willing to harass Facebook employees for results.
Using Facebook as a judge becomes more like popularity contest with who can scream the loudest and are willing to harass Facebook employees for results.
I can understand some random activists doing this. But Warren is a senate and former lawyer. Even she didn't want to go the legal route. It's pretty disappointing. Instead, she pulled a stunt with fake news facebook ads stuff.
> The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal.
Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal.
> The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal.
Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal.
> But Warren is a senate and former lawyer. Even she didn't want to go the legal route. It's pretty disappointing.
She doesn't want to go the legal route because she knows she'd lose. Free speech protections in the United States are ironclad. In other jurisdictions, e.g., Germany, they're not so strong and activists in those countries have succeeded in making the state compel tech companies to censor. This approach will not work in the United States.
> Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal.
One of the most infuriating habits of the authoritarian activist types is their way of pretending that whatever they don't like is de jure illegal. That they've convinced people that there's some law against "hate speech" is sad.
No, hate speech and fake news are not illegal, nor should they be: any prohibited category of ideas invariably expands to encompass whatever it is that the people defining the category dislike. The strict American prohibition of censorship is the product of centuries of experience in England with exactly this sort of creeping totalitarianism. Humanity has not changed since then. Power still corrupts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
She doesn't want to go the legal route because she knows she'd lose. Free speech protections in the United States are ironclad. In other jurisdictions, e.g., Germany, they're not so strong and activists in those countries have succeeded in making the state compel tech companies to censor. This approach will not work in the United States.
> Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal.
One of the most infuriating habits of the authoritarian activist types is their way of pretending that whatever they don't like is de jure illegal. That they've convinced people that there's some law against "hate speech" is sad.
No, hate speech and fake news are not illegal, nor should they be: any prohibited category of ideas invariably expands to encompass whatever it is that the people defining the category dislike. The strict American prohibition of censorship is the product of centuries of experience in England with exactly this sort of creeping totalitarianism. Humanity has not changed since then. Power still corrupts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Wait a min, hate speech isn't illegal?
Not in the USA. It's been firmly ruled protected by SCOTUS, with the same caveats tied to it as other speech. In other words, direct call to harm is not protected, saying you hate them or a subset of their characteristics is absolutely protected.
Not in the USA, no
> the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal.
Nor, 99% of the time, particularly hateful.
Nor, 99% of the time, particularly hateful.
>bad speech
Lol. Yeah, we should totally ban “bad speech”.
Lol. Yeah, we should totally ban “bad speech”.
Come on, man. I'm not a native English speaker who is well-educated in laws and social study.
By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts.
I would appreciate if you try to get the main point. Thank you
By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts.
I would appreciate if you try to get the main point. Thank you
> I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech.
The term 'justice' implies government. The administering of justice is ostensibly function of government, not private entities like Facebook. The unspoken understanding that perhaps you are missing is that it is taken as given that any 'justice process' created to prevent and/or punish unpopular speech will ultimately be abused and extended to effectively all meaningful speech that the Powers That Be (kings, presidents, whomever) don't approve of. That understanding comes from the experience of history and was the basis for the 1st Amendment of the US constitution.
It is certainly true that in many places on Earth 'wrong' speech is criminal and is prosecuted. In the US the attempt to outlaw speech or prosecute people for their speech is what is considered 'wrong' and 'bad.' Those points in history when these principles were violated are understood to be mistakes and aberrations.
So you don't get very far in the US with ideas of making speech into a matter for law enforcement or courts. With a few narrow exceptions we don't entertain these ideas and we don't reward anyone that tries it, or even suggests it, as you can see from the moderation.
> By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts.
Senator Warren's views do not have the force of law and no one in the US is required to honor them. Further, Senator Warren's opinions are not universal. Giving Senator Warren the ability to control what expressions Facebook does and does not permit would require something on the order of revolution, probably violent.
The term 'justice' implies government. The administering of justice is ostensibly function of government, not private entities like Facebook. The unspoken understanding that perhaps you are missing is that it is taken as given that any 'justice process' created to prevent and/or punish unpopular speech will ultimately be abused and extended to effectively all meaningful speech that the Powers That Be (kings, presidents, whomever) don't approve of. That understanding comes from the experience of history and was the basis for the 1st Amendment of the US constitution.
It is certainly true that in many places on Earth 'wrong' speech is criminal and is prosecuted. In the US the attempt to outlaw speech or prosecute people for their speech is what is considered 'wrong' and 'bad.' Those points in history when these principles were violated are understood to be mistakes and aberrations.
So you don't get very far in the US with ideas of making speech into a matter for law enforcement or courts. With a few narrow exceptions we don't entertain these ideas and we don't reward anyone that tries it, or even suggests it, as you can see from the moderation.
> By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts.
Senator Warren's views do not have the force of law and no one in the US is required to honor them. Further, Senator Warren's opinions are not universal. Giving Senator Warren the ability to control what expressions Facebook does and does not permit would require something on the order of revolution, probably violent.
Because it’s almost all politics and tribalism. Democrats complain that there’s not enough content take downs and republicans complain that there’s too much of it. No matter what internet companies do, they’ll face tons of criticism.
And both sides think that they that support free speech. But free speech mean to them speech they agree with, and everything else is a hate speech.
And both sides think that they that support free speech. But free speech mean to them speech they agree with, and everything else is a hate speech.
How does your characterization - that Democrats want more take downs and Republicans less - support or even comport with your contention that both sides claim interest in free speech
Does anyone here run ads on Facebook?
How does the performance of the ads compare to Facebook's competitors? (Snapchat, Google, Twitter, Pinterest, etc)
How does the performance of the ads compare to Facebook's competitors? (Snapchat, Google, Twitter, Pinterest, etc)
I've worked in advertising for 12+ years. I can easily imagine a company (say, Pepsi), deciding to pause a campaign they were planning to do because they figure the public are not in the mood to see advertising like that. And having nothing in the pipeline to replace it.
So a "boycott" to the public is really just "we don't have much to say right now" in private.
Also, "we need to save a few dollars because our quarterly profits have gone down."
I don't think it was ever any "moral" boycott. It was just an excuse to cut ad spending for a few weeks and avoid being tone deaf during a BLM protest movement.