Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts(buzzfeednews.com)
buzzfeednews.com
Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-profits-military-gear-ads-capitol-riot
256 comments
> This software is working exactly as it was designed to.
Exactly this is why I think micro targeting should simply be banned by governments.
I mean:
- It's fundamental meant to manipulate people.
- It's easy to abuse and not really possible to control.
- Discriminatory micro advertisement, weather on a gender, race, religion or similar basis are pretty common for affected people, but at the same time hard to detect for Facebook or any control organization.
- Category combinations which indirectly target addicts are repeatedly used to target them with ad's promoting what this people are addicted to, e.g. gambling.
- *The value it provides for the consumer is questionable.*
- *The value it provides for a ethnically acceptable free marked are questionable.*
- As far as I can tell the only ones noticeable profiting (and as such majorly losing out from a ban) from it are such which act without any regard for the health and dignity/well being of the consumer and society in total (well and big ad platforms).
Exactly this is why I think micro targeting should simply be banned by governments.
I mean:
- It's fundamental meant to manipulate people.
- It's easy to abuse and not really possible to control.
- Discriminatory micro advertisement, weather on a gender, race, religion or similar basis are pretty common for affected people, but at the same time hard to detect for Facebook or any control organization.
- Category combinations which indirectly target addicts are repeatedly used to target them with ad's promoting what this people are addicted to, e.g. gambling.
- *The value it provides for the consumer is questionable.*
- *The value it provides for a ethnically acceptable free marked are questionable.*
- As far as I can tell the only ones noticeable profiting (and as such majorly losing out from a ban) from it are such which act without any regard for the health and dignity/well being of the consumer and society in total (well and big ad platforms).
> Exactly this is why I think micro targeting should simply be banned by governments.
Any site that doesn't allow opting out of micro targeting should be banned by government.
Any site that doesn't allow opting out of micro targeting should be banned by government.
The gulf between opt out and opt in is enormous, and the entire problem. Opt out is not informed consent.
Micro Targeting can absolutely be abused and you have done a good job outlining the dark side of targeting.
But to say nothing would be lost from banning it because its always used without regard for health and dignity is way to far.
Brands like Zappos Adaptive which sells adult shoes that don't need to be tied to people with Autism. Its very hard to do this kind of sales without targeting people affected by disability. The same goes for companies innovating in Wheelchairs, diabetes care, etc..
But to say nothing would be lost from banning it because its always used without regard for health and dignity is way to far.
Brands like Zappos Adaptive which sells adult shoes that don't need to be tied to people with Autism. Its very hard to do this kind of sales without targeting people affected by disability. The same goes for companies innovating in Wheelchairs, diabetes care, etc..
Would "people who bought this book also bought books X,Y,Z" count as microtargeting?
Because I actually find these recommendations valuable.
Because I actually find these recommendations valuable.
I think we might need to differ between advertisers choosing the micro targets and automatic context dependent microtargeting . And for the later we probably would need to differentiate between basing the automatic general purpose targeting based on the current context (the site you are on + what subsection of the site you are on + what you have in your shopping car and similar) with the actual context + history + ML based micro categorization.
In general what I am against is advertisements where
- the advertiser can choose targets based on too fine grained categories (micro categories)
- people get classified with too fine grained categories
(Both points are mostly the same.)
So "people who bought this book also bought books X,Y,Z" is IMHO fine, even if it can sometime lead to bad situations as it can be abused much less. (EDIT: But that partially because it shows real products, "people who have seen XY news also see Z news" would be a different thing.)
In general what I am against is advertisements where
- the advertiser can choose targets based on too fine grained categories (micro categories)
- people get classified with too fine grained categories
(Both points are mostly the same.)
So "people who bought this book also bought books X,Y,Z" is IMHO fine, even if it can sometime lead to bad situations as it can be abused much less. (EDIT: But that partially because it shows real products, "people who have seen XY news also see Z news" would be a different thing.)
I think it would, and it's in a similar category to YouTube constructing an alternate reality based on videos I watched. The difference is that it takes longer (and I personally have to overcome more inertia) to read a book than to binge watch outrage media or something on YouTube.
> It's fundamental meant to manipulate people.
Manipulation implies that you're lying to people to get them to buy things, but is it easy to make that argument for FB? What would be the leading argument here?
And why should we think that automated processes tend towards manipulation (lying) as a strategy in the marketplace?
Manipulation implies that you're lying to people to get them to buy things, but is it easy to make that argument for FB? What would be the leading argument here?
And why should we think that automated processes tend towards manipulation (lying) as a strategy in the marketplace?
> Manipulation implies that you're lying to people
No it means you are trying to change their behavior, usually in an unscrupulous way.
These ads aren't lying. But they are certainly pushing a narrative. Which at best, is normalizing the violent actions taken. And at worst, is recruiting people for that cause.
No it means you are trying to change their behavior, usually in an unscrupulous way.
These ads aren't lying. But they are certainly pushing a narrative. Which at best, is normalizing the violent actions taken. And at worst, is recruiting people for that cause.
[deleted]
How does manipulation imply lying? When you're manipulating someone you're trying to change their behavior from something the might not want to do to something you want them to do.
You don't need to lie to do that.
You don't need to lie to do that.
[deleted]
That's why the solution is liability: Companies will keep leaving unchecked algorithms responsible for this until they can go to jail for doing so.
Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have.
Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.
Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have.
Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.
Liability for what exactly? How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it?
It seems like you haven't really thought about this and are just personally against adtech and those companies. That's not how rights and legislation should be decided.
It seems like you haven't really thought about this and are just personally against adtech and those companies. That's not how rights and legislation should be decided.
How is someone supporting and fostering a bad act not also to blame? I see from your profile you work in adtech, perhaps rights shouldn't be decided by people who seek to avoid blame because they profit from it.
You have no idea about my background so let's stick to the actual argument.
Selling items and running ads is not the same as supporting or fostering a bad act. People can similarly buy knives or many other potential and actual weapons, it's still the user that's ultimately at fault.
Selling items and running ads is not the same as supporting or fostering a bad act. People can similarly buy knives or many other potential and actual weapons, it's still the user that's ultimately at fault.
When you run an ad for weapons next to articles inciting retaliation against the government, it does become the same as supporting or fostering an insurrection.
Now, sure, it can happen because you unleashed an algorithm on the world and don't know what it does, but you're still responsible for it.
Now, sure, it can happen because you unleashed an algorithm on the world and don't know what it does, but you're still responsible for it.
People are responsible for their own actions.
Perhaps you want the government to tell you what you can say but I would prefer to go in the opposite direction and completely divorce speech from action, and stop trampling on our rights over the actions of a few. This endless shifting of blame solves nothing.
Perhaps you want the government to tell you what you can say but I would prefer to go in the opposite direction and completely divorce speech from action, and stop trampling on our rights over the actions of a few. This endless shifting of blame solves nothing.
[deleted]
> How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it?
"Strangely" enough this does not apply when corporations' money is at stake, hence sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible. Taking 2 opposite approaches for the same issue in order for the lobbying corporations to profit is a sign of acting in bad faith.
Facebook built this 2 billion people village, exploited them and collected taxes, then said "You know what? Policing it is hard so let the governments do it". And the governments should do it. EaaS - Enforcement as a service. And as any service it should cost. No personal liability needed, once money starts pouring out of the companies' coffers you'll see how quickly they find a solution.
"Strangely" enough this does not apply when corporations' money is at stake, hence sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible. Taking 2 opposite approaches for the same issue in order for the lobbying corporations to profit is a sign of acting in bad faith.
Facebook built this 2 billion people village, exploited them and collected taxes, then said "You know what? Policing it is hard so let the governments do it". And the governments should do it. EaaS - Enforcement as a service. And as any service it should cost. No personal liability needed, once money starts pouring out of the companies' coffers you'll see how quickly they find a solution.
Fostering insurrection for profit is, I am pretty sure, illegal. And I'm pretty sure a prison or worse offense.
What about empowering people to protect themselves from violent insurrectionists? If I read in the news that a whole bunch of people planned to converge on my town and shoot at each other, I would certainly consider buying some body armor
So the options are a) Facebook sells tactical equipment to one side, and body armor to the other, or b) They ban these product categories altogether.
In context with the fact that Facebook also served up the precise content day after day, year after year, which put people (the whole population) into this inconsistent-with-reality, individually tailored emotional state which is nothing if not a constant reflection and validation of their worst tendencies and pre-dispositions.
Think of an honestly shitty person whose problems are of their own creation in every way (for the purpose of this thought experiment, you can even pretend it’s not you). Do you think Facebook ever gave them a series of posts that reflects that? Or would they log on to see all the ways other people are the problem? And that’s everyone.
We all have flaws, but this is a profit-driven platform. And if you’re trying to sell someone something, making them feel like the true piece of shit they really are isn’t exactly in the ABCs of how to make a sale, much less at their machine-driven scale.
Facebook is basically the automated version of the guy rubbing a boxer’s shoulders in the corner of the ring, whispering in their ear a never-ending slew of made-up things the other guy said so that when the fight starts, he’s angry as can be.
In context with the fact that Facebook also served up the precise content day after day, year after year, which put people (the whole population) into this inconsistent-with-reality, individually tailored emotional state which is nothing if not a constant reflection and validation of their worst tendencies and pre-dispositions.
Think of an honestly shitty person whose problems are of their own creation in every way (for the purpose of this thought experiment, you can even pretend it’s not you). Do you think Facebook ever gave them a series of posts that reflects that? Or would they log on to see all the ways other people are the problem? And that’s everyone.
We all have flaws, but this is a profit-driven platform. And if you’re trying to sell someone something, making them feel like the true piece of shit they really are isn’t exactly in the ABCs of how to make a sale, much less at their machine-driven scale.
Facebook is basically the automated version of the guy rubbing a boxer’s shoulders in the corner of the ring, whispering in their ear a never-ending slew of made-up things the other guy said so that when the fight starts, he’s angry as can be.
Are you saying the posts, or the ads next to them, are the illegal fostering? I think the gear advertised is legal.
Hm. OK. Let's compare this with how child pornography is handled, be it its distribution, or posession, not to speak of the production.
Do you still think your position has merit? :-)
Do you still think your position has merit? :-)
Yes, because my position isn't discussing illegal items. They can't run ads for heroin either.
Why not ? If Parler/Gab can be de-platformed and sued for supporting violent insurrection, so should facebook/twitter for advertising violent insurrection.
Careful, with that argument incitement charges become impossible.
[deleted]
> Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.
Why not the CEOs of the companies using the targeted keywords/demographic information?
The "it's not the gun that kills, it's the people who kill" argument?
Why not the CEOs of the companies using the targeted keywords/demographic information?
The "it's not the gun that kills, it's the people who kill" argument?
That argument doesn't really hold up when Facebook literally serves the ads. In the metaphor you're suggesting, this would make Facebook the one wielding the gun, and companies buying ads would be whoever hired them to do the job. Hired hitmen are still criminally liable, despite not being the client.
How is that argument? The people advertising and selling are not the people buying and using them. It's different people.
Yes, but Facebook and Google are neither of those. They're just the platform where the advertisers and their victims connect. I think the parent was saying this is less to do with the algorithm, and more due to the keywords that the advertisers chose to link their product with.
"gun" = "platform"
Gun = Facebook platform
Hitman (because Gunslinger is too cool) = Facebook company
Targets = Capitol Rioters
Hirers = Gun companies
Bullets = Ads
The analogy works because although the companies were unintentionally blanket-targeting their victims, a real world equivalent would still be persecuted. Hence everyone involved should be punished - the rioters (who already are), Facebook the company, the gun companies (albeit in minor fashion like fines because it was stil unintentional), and Facebook the platform (which should be neutered).
Hitman (because Gunslinger is too cool) = Facebook company
Targets = Capitol Rioters
Hirers = Gun companies
Bullets = Ads
The analogy works because although the companies were unintentionally blanket-targeting their victims, a real world equivalent would still be persecuted. Hence everyone involved should be punished - the rioters (who already are), Facebook the company, the gun companies (albeit in minor fashion like fines because it was stil unintentional), and Facebook the platform (which should be neutered).
For clarity: liability solutions are civil and aren't going to put anyone behind bars.
But yes, that's absolutely part of the puzzle. Companies who made money by peddling armor and ammo and gear into an extremist community they were simultaneously trying to moderate need to be held partially responsible.
And that goes for the apocalyptic end-times mess that has infested the gun and gun-peripheral industries too. If you spend your advertising budget telling your customers they need your products to "protect their freedoms" then you don't get a pass if they end up sacking congress to do it.
But yes, that's absolutely part of the puzzle. Companies who made money by peddling armor and ammo and gear into an extremist community they were simultaneously trying to moderate need to be held partially responsible.
And that goes for the apocalyptic end-times mess that has infested the gun and gun-peripheral industries too. If you spend your advertising budget telling your customers they need your products to "protect their freedoms" then you don't get a pass if they end up sacking congress to do it.
Criminal liability isn't an impossible thing to do.
Liability is tricky because a) it seems like it would be hard to prove, and b) it could get too broad, hampering internet expression in general. I tend to think a specific law against automated content-curation would be better - that's the true source of problems - though it's obviously still really hard to define (arguably anything a computer does is "automated").
The simplest solution might be privacy protections, which (among other things) would indirectly kneecap targeted content curation, due to a lack of data.
The simplest solution might be privacy protections, which (among other things) would indirectly kneecap targeted content curation, due to a lack of data.
People have been taught by big tech companies' PR teams that any regulation will hurt the Internet, but I don't believe it's remotely true. Internet companies currently enjoy near complete immunity to content they distribute, but when such things have gone, the Internet will readjust.
Either we legislate big tech or big tech will drive/own the process that creates legislation (arguably the latter is already happening).
Are the ads illegal? Or the products they are advertising? The website for Soldier of Fortune advertises similar products, should they be shut down? How about the print magazine, should that be shut down as well?
There are a lot of sites out there that publish much more objectionable content. Should we shut all of them down as well?
There are a lot of sites out there that publish much more objectionable content. Should we shut all of them down as well?
> Are the ads illegal? [...] should they be shut down?
Probably not, but insurrection is. The ad isn’t the problem here, the context & juxtaposition is the problem. It’s not a call to shut down ads, it’s a call to avoid accidentally (or worse, intentionally) supporting illegal speech and violence.
Probably not, but insurrection is. The ad isn’t the problem here, the context & juxtaposition is the problem. It’s not a call to shut down ads, it’s a call to avoid accidentally (or worse, intentionally) supporting illegal speech and violence.
The site https://www.sofmag.com/ currently shows advertising for gun accessories next to mostly political news and opinion pieces. Does the legality of this advertising depend on whether a person or an algorithm selected the advertising?
Questions like these are probably why the bill Josh Hawley wrote is clearly targeted at Facebook and Google, what with the $1.5bil revenue number: https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=...
(huh, is that a click tracker? URL from https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bill...)
Questions like these are probably why the bill Josh Hawley wrote is clearly targeted at Facebook and Google, what with the $1.5bil revenue number: https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=...
(huh, is that a click tracker? URL from https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduces-bill...)
> [site] currently shows advertising for gun accessories next to mostly political news and opinion pieces.
I guess this is still somewhat straw man. Ads near politics and opinion on a politically oriented site also isn't what was being called out exactly. I guess that it could be summarized as advertising the ammunition to carry out a violent insurrection next to the call to create a violent insurrection (illegally), on a site that is primarily social, mass market, and supposedly politically neutral, that was the problem being called out. Trying to draw broader lines than that makes any argument specious at best.
> Does the legality of this advertising depend on whether a person or an algorithm selected the advertising?
Currently, no. Currently the advertising is legal regardless. (And note, again, the legality of the ads wasn't the issue being discussed.)
I guess this is still somewhat straw man. Ads near politics and opinion on a politically oriented site also isn't what was being called out exactly. I guess that it could be summarized as advertising the ammunition to carry out a violent insurrection next to the call to create a violent insurrection (illegally), on a site that is primarily social, mass market, and supposedly politically neutral, that was the problem being called out. Trying to draw broader lines than that makes any argument specious at best.
> Does the legality of this advertising depend on whether a person or an algorithm selected the advertising?
Currently, no. Currently the advertising is legal regardless. (And note, again, the legality of the ads wasn't the issue being discussed.)
> the context & juxtaposition is the problem
This seems like an issue that cannot be solved (yet). No human editor would place insensitive adverts next to related content, and I think we're a way off ML knowing the myriad subtleties that could be involved.
A sibling content mentioned adding rules to stop this particular case in point, but that just sounds like an endless game of whack-a-mole.
This seems like an issue that cannot be solved (yet). No human editor would place insensitive adverts next to related content, and I think we're a way off ML knowing the myriad subtleties that could be involved.
A sibling content mentioned adding rules to stop this particular case in point, but that just sounds like an endless game of whack-a-mole.
> No human editor would place insensitive adverts next to related content
Right, isn't that the solution?
Right, isn't that the solution?
> Probably not, but insurrection is.
If Facebook is distributing illegal messages inciting, or that constitute part of a conspiracy aimed at, insurrection, that is obviously a problem.
What legal ads it shows next to such messages is, if a legitimate concern at all, orders of magnitude less important.
If the content is not illegal, and the ads are not illegal, I’m not sure what the issue is at all.
If Facebook is distributing illegal messages inciting, or that constitute part of a conspiracy aimed at, insurrection, that is obviously a problem.
What legal ads it shows next to such messages is, if a legitimate concern at all, orders of magnitude less important.
If the content is not illegal, and the ads are not illegal, I’m not sure what the issue is at all.
>If the content is not illegal, and the ads are not illegal, I’m not sure what the issue is at all.
Have you ever considered that what is illegal can be changed, and that the commenters you are replying to may feel that some part of this industry should be made illegal? It used to be legal to advertise cigarettes to children, and now it's not.
If you want to argue that it will be difficult to write and pass legislation that actually accomplishes anything meaningful, I'd agree. But to say "no laws are being broken so who cares?" is just so unproductive. Something has to be done here, and I think I would rather have it be done at a government level so that I can at least feel like I had some say in it.
Have you ever considered that what is illegal can be changed, and that the commenters you are replying to may feel that some part of this industry should be made illegal? It used to be legal to advertise cigarettes to children, and now it's not.
If you want to argue that it will be difficult to write and pass legislation that actually accomplishes anything meaningful, I'd agree. But to say "no laws are being broken so who cares?" is just so unproductive. Something has to be done here, and I think I would rather have it be done at a government level so that I can at least feel like I had some say in it.
> Have you ever considered that what is illegal can be changed, and that the commenters you are replying to may feel that some part of this industry should be made illegal?
Sure, and I’ve seen plenty of decent arguments for moving the line of legality on the main content (less so on the content of the ads at issue, though there might be some.) Feel free to replace “should be illegal” for “is illegal” in the grandparent post.
Doesn’t really change the basic point, which is that I fail to see much argument for why the juxtaposition should be of concern that doesn’t depend on one of the items (most likely the main content rather than the ads) being of much greater concern to start with.
Sure, and I’ve seen plenty of decent arguments for moving the line of legality on the main content (less so on the content of the ads at issue, though there might be some.) Feel free to replace “should be illegal” for “is illegal” in the grandparent post.
Doesn’t really change the basic point, which is that I fail to see much argument for why the juxtaposition should be of concern that doesn’t depend on one of the items (most likely the main content rather than the ads) being of much greater concern to start with.
Advertisements are also messaging.
Take a news article about a governer starting a new coronavirus lockdown. This article having ads for hand sanitizer, and this article having ads for zip-ties, are two very different messages.
Take a news article about a governer starting a new coronavirus lockdown. This article having ads for hand sanitizer, and this article having ads for zip-ties, are two very different messages.
This will never happen. Cigarettes are still being advertised and sold.
But only real alternative to adtech is spam: cheap (because of very low effectiveness), flashy rows of banner ads, 1990s style.
I am old enough to remember how obnoxious internet experience was ~20 years ago before targeted ads became a thing. It sucked.
People always act as though companies are somehow entitled to highly effective advertising. I'd prefer a return to those obnoxious ads, they were low-tech and everyone learned to ignore them.
That’s a false dichotomy. The only thing that ad tech gets you is specific targeting on a per user basis. You can still advertise related products and services based on the context in which the ads are presented without needing to know the marital status age range and skin color of the person doing the viewing.
Thank you, i didn't quite grasp that difference.
Nothing's fundamentally changed, besides the flashing. Load up a site without Adblock, and you'll have a time warp moment.
I'll take "obnoxious" over "insidiously effective"
> Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have.
That attitude is the problem: why do we go straight from "This is a problem!" to the government? Aren't there solutions other than making things illegal? Is it just because making things illegal is easier than talking to our neighbors and friends, and giving them peaceful solutions to their problems, doing business locally, and refusing to do business through online ads that use techniques that lead to results like this?
People who call for insurrection are usually plenty aware of where to get things like this anyway. It's a bad look for Facebook, sure; but are these ads likely to do real harm? I doubt it. There's plenty of time for sensible people to make a difference without creating more anger by trying to make even more restrictive laws.
That attitude is the problem: why do we go straight from "This is a problem!" to the government? Aren't there solutions other than making things illegal? Is it just because making things illegal is easier than talking to our neighbors and friends, and giving them peaceful solutions to their problems, doing business locally, and refusing to do business through online ads that use techniques that lead to results like this?
People who call for insurrection are usually plenty aware of where to get things like this anyway. It's a bad look for Facebook, sure; but are these ads likely to do real harm? I doubt it. There's plenty of time for sensible people to make a difference without creating more anger by trying to make even more restrictive laws.
One of the major specific roles of government in a civil society is to maintain and establish the rules of fair play which then allow for a functioning market economy. This represents an inherent compromise.We recognize and appreciate the value that integration and scale provides, and we use the scale of the government to keep it in check.
This isn’t just about going out and talking to people who disagree with you. Part of the issue is that the news bubbles that have been created out of news and stories and conspiracies that algorithms know we will react to chip away at our ability to have those conversations with each other.
You know, I watch a lot of Fox News, I have some deeply conservative friends and acquaintances and dude they live in a parallel universe. We need the government to collapse those universes together so we can have those conversations in the first place.
The ads to harm because they reinforce the structural walls between universes which prevent the necessary conversation from taking place. It’s pretty bad out there dude.
This isn’t just about going out and talking to people who disagree with you. Part of the issue is that the news bubbles that have been created out of news and stories and conspiracies that algorithms know we will react to chip away at our ability to have those conversations with each other.
You know, I watch a lot of Fox News, I have some deeply conservative friends and acquaintances and dude they live in a parallel universe. We need the government to collapse those universes together so we can have those conversations in the first place.
The ads to harm because they reinforce the structural walls between universes which prevent the necessary conversation from taking place. It’s pretty bad out there dude.
I disagree on your first paragraph, but that's less critical than my disagreement with your second and third. Don't you think that some personal engagement could help bring that parallel universe — and yours — back into sync with reality? You say the algorithms chip away at our ability to have conversations, but I see the opposite: real life has a stronger effect on people's perceptions of truth than on-line bubbles, and can help reassert reality.
The role of government is literally to establish rules for fair play in a free market economy. Like that’s the point of the United States code :-) that’s what being a rule of law country means.
Regarding the rest I’m not saying don’t talk to them, By all means invite crazy Susie over for dinner. Have those conversations. It’s tilting at windmills as long as they continue to get their reality defined by what they’re going to react to online and in media.
Humans aren’t really able to process an objective reality, we live in a world of abstractions. Our preconceived notions of what the universe and objective reality are define are personal realities. Reality is all around each and everyone of us, if objective reality were all it took, we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.
Regarding the rest I’m not saying don’t talk to them, By all means invite crazy Susie over for dinner. Have those conversations. It’s tilting at windmills as long as they continue to get their reality defined by what they’re going to react to online and in media.
Humans aren’t really able to process an objective reality, we live in a world of abstractions. Our preconceived notions of what the universe and objective reality are define are personal realities. Reality is all around each and everyone of us, if objective reality were all it took, we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.
Exactly. If you joke about nods and stuffed dogs full of tannerite all day of course the algo is gonna try and show you adds for level "wish.com" armor plates and bulk ammunition because it's job is to show stuff to people who will buy that stuff and you've fit the profile of people who buy cheap body armor and bulk ammo to a tee.
People preparing for revolt buy revolt supplies, water is wet, more news at 11.
People preparing for revolt buy revolt supplies, water is wet, more news at 11.
To make a counter point, in developing any technology that makes possible things that weren't before, you will eventually encounter problems that the creators never thought to consider. Fixing a problem once it's been identified, and thus refining the technology, is exactly what they're supposed to do. If you realize your ocean liners don't have enough life boats, you add more lifeboats, you don't ban ships.
I'm sure people will claim that this problem should have been foreseen, but it's really only obvious in hindsight. Just a few weeks ago, none of us would ever have thought to plan for the possibility of the US Capitol being stormed. Of course we could know that there would be problematic edge cases, but we couldn't have anticipated every single one, nonetheless handled all of them.
I think we sometimes forget that if Facebook were a person, they still wouldn't be old enough to drive. For all the billions of users and billions of dollars, this is still a technology in its infancy. I'll gladly hand out pitchforks if it's shown that Facebook has been dragging its feet fixing known problems, or if it's shown they've feigned ignorance about a problem they were warned would happen, but if we forbid any innovation that carries the risk of unforeseen issues, we will be banning all innovation.
I'm sure people will claim that this problem should have been foreseen, but it's really only obvious in hindsight. Just a few weeks ago, none of us would ever have thought to plan for the possibility of the US Capitol being stormed. Of course we could know that there would be problematic edge cases, but we couldn't have anticipated every single one, nonetheless handled all of them.
I think we sometimes forget that if Facebook were a person, they still wouldn't be old enough to drive. For all the billions of users and billions of dollars, this is still a technology in its infancy. I'll gladly hand out pitchforks if it's shown that Facebook has been dragging its feet fixing known problems, or if it's shown they've feigned ignorance about a problem they were warned would happen, but if we forbid any innovation that carries the risk of unforeseen issues, we will be banning all innovation.
What's very interesting about this is that it makes a great data counterpoint for the "AI will never just spontaneously decide to do [bad thing]." If releasing the HypnoDrones will help sell more paperclips, it's gonna happen.
It's the whole maximum paperclip problem with automation. There is a limit in how much you want to automate a task or else you end up with major unintended consequences.
You would think we would have gotten wise to this problem by now but nope.
You would think we would have gotten wise to this problem by now but nope.
IMO the entire corporate system is working as intended, maximizing profit and growth, by promoting engagement and generating clicks within bounds it’s given in case with social media.
It’s often said that companies aren’t people and not alive or conscious. I agree to the first one, but for the rest, is there a mathematical proof for those?
It’s often said that companies aren’t people and not alive or conscious. I agree to the first one, but for the rest, is there a mathematical proof for those?
Or they should never allow military gear to be advertised at all given its main customers.
More of privatize profits, socialize costs. This is the end game to Capitalism, and it can't fix itself.
I'll pile on an anecdote. I still have a facebook account but its not something I use very often except the past week given the situation in the USA.
My facebook account is very old, when i was more of an active user I did all the usual posts/photos that a lot of liberal urban types contribute.
Anyway, after posting some anti-insurrection posts I start noticing all sort of "tacti-cool" gear ads or targeted T-shirt s with some very macho-man hyper masculinity phrases on them.
This is very much _not_ me. Now I keep facebook on a tight leash (FB container, privacy settings turned to max) so my guess is that someone out there is spending a lot of money on a huge ad target or somehow facebook thinks anyone who is posting about a US insurrection would like to participate with some neat military cosplay kit.
My facebook account is very old, when i was more of an active user I did all the usual posts/photos that a lot of liberal urban types contribute.
Anyway, after posting some anti-insurrection posts I start noticing all sort of "tacti-cool" gear ads or targeted T-shirt s with some very macho-man hyper masculinity phrases on them.
This is very much _not_ me. Now I keep facebook on a tight leash (FB container, privacy settings turned to max) so my guess is that someone out there is spending a lot of money on a huge ad target or somehow facebook thinks anyone who is posting about a US insurrection would like to participate with some neat military cosplay kit.
> so my guess is that someone out there is spending a lot of money on a huge ad target
I think this is really it. The profit margins on this stuff is insane. And the volumes of money typical people spend on this stuff is also insane.
(speculation here) The insurrection is probably opening the door for new customers. I would not be surprised to hear a people in zero-gun households are now seeking to acquire their first one. That allure of "protection" is strong. And urbanites represent a huge untapped market for guns and tactical gear. So it makes sense to push ads on these people.
Going from zero to one is the biggest leap. I bet there's usually some event for people that primes them to pull the trigger. You buy that first one for protection, but the next ones are because they are fun, fashionable, or an investment. I know a fair number of people with gun+related collections which exceed the value of their cars. The fact that gun collecting has become fairly profitable in the past few years seems to have really spurred a frenzy of buying. If you can buy something for $800, and sell it for $1300 in three years, then why not buy as much as you can afford? This then fuels shortages, raising prices.
So yeah, it might be very much _not_ you, right now, but I bet they are hoping enough ads will change your mind. I mean, you want to be the cool, macho person that you family and friends turn to for protection in these trying times, right? /s
I think this is really it. The profit margins on this stuff is insane. And the volumes of money typical people spend on this stuff is also insane.
(speculation here) The insurrection is probably opening the door for new customers. I would not be surprised to hear a people in zero-gun households are now seeking to acquire their first one. That allure of "protection" is strong. And urbanites represent a huge untapped market for guns and tactical gear. So it makes sense to push ads on these people.
Going from zero to one is the biggest leap. I bet there's usually some event for people that primes them to pull the trigger. You buy that first one for protection, but the next ones are because they are fun, fashionable, or an investment. I know a fair number of people with gun+related collections which exceed the value of their cars. The fact that gun collecting has become fairly profitable in the past few years seems to have really spurred a frenzy of buying. If you can buy something for $800, and sell it for $1300 in three years, then why not buy as much as you can afford? This then fuels shortages, raising prices.
So yeah, it might be very much _not_ you, right now, but I bet they are hoping enough ads will change your mind. I mean, you want to be the cool, macho person that you family and friends turn to for protection in these trying times, right? /s
Exactly, there is a massive amount of money, and tons of fear.
There has been an epic increase in gun, ammo and armor sales this year to people of all political persuasions. Gun folks are bad with this anyways due to the political cycle and ammo shortages and bans of various types of items, but there is a genuine shortage where people who are afraid of riots and violence in their cities across the US have been buying up anything and everything.
Not every city got looted, but a lot of major downtown areas did, and the police in a number of cities are going through real attrition, to the point where a lot of crime will just not be dealt with. Not to mention it will be extremely difficult to hire more police officers after they spend a year demonizing them and forcing them to deal with riots that they effectively are not allowed to stop (especially Seattle- where I live- and Portland).
Now, I have a different theory with a lot of the tactical shit. I think a huge amount of it it is hypebeast/instagram-driven fashion for a large segment of young American men with disposable incomes and no bars and sports open. Cosplay, if you will- and it's openly admitted.
PS: Assholes who are buying all the .22LR, please stop/go for a different caliber. Some of us like target shooting and want to continue our hobby.
There has been an epic increase in gun, ammo and armor sales this year to people of all political persuasions. Gun folks are bad with this anyways due to the political cycle and ammo shortages and bans of various types of items, but there is a genuine shortage where people who are afraid of riots and violence in their cities across the US have been buying up anything and everything.
Not every city got looted, but a lot of major downtown areas did, and the police in a number of cities are going through real attrition, to the point where a lot of crime will just not be dealt with. Not to mention it will be extremely difficult to hire more police officers after they spend a year demonizing them and forcing them to deal with riots that they effectively are not allowed to stop (especially Seattle- where I live- and Portland).
Now, I have a different theory with a lot of the tactical shit. I think a huge amount of it it is hypebeast/instagram-driven fashion for a large segment of young American men with disposable incomes and no bars and sports open. Cosplay, if you will- and it's openly admitted.
PS: Assholes who are buying all the .22LR, please stop/go for a different caliber. Some of us like target shooting and want to continue our hobby.
> I would not be surprised to hear a people in zero-gun households are now seeking to acquire their first one.
About 40% of sales in 2020[1] were to first time owners, I think it's a fairly safe bet 2021 will increase those numbers.
[1]https://www.nssf.org/first-time-gun-buyers-grow-to-nearly-5-...
About 40% of sales in 2020[1] were to first time owners, I think it's a fairly safe bet 2021 will increase those numbers.
[1]https://www.nssf.org/first-time-gun-buyers-grow-to-nearly-5-...
> I would not be surprised to hear a people in zero-gun households are now seeking to acquire their first one
This happened all summer when the crowd that paid big bucks to live in inner suburbs realized that the peaceful protests were uncomfortably close.
>And urbanites represent a huge untapped market for guns and tactical gear
Minorities are a far bigger untapped market demographic.
This happened all summer when the crowd that paid big bucks to live in inner suburbs realized that the peaceful protests were uncomfortably close.
>And urbanites represent a huge untapped market for guns and tactical gear
Minorities are a far bigger untapped market demographic.
I've seen a lot of reports published lately that indicate that 2020 saw massive purchases of guns by people who weren't already owners. Its been a rough year with a lot of uncertainty and plenty of motivating examples for people of most political leanings to justify buying one, or two or some level 4 plates and Nods.
Ammunition has been difficult to get since April and its going to stay that way for some time I think. Lots of popular models of firearm have been non stop sold out. The tactical gear industry has seen a huge boom in sales. What used to be very small and niche is now massive. Before 2020 most people already in the hobby didn't own plate carriers, battle belts, helmets etc. Now that stuff is just as scarce as anything else.
Ammunition has been difficult to get since April and its going to stay that way for some time I think. Lots of popular models of firearm have been non stop sold out. The tactical gear industry has seen a huge boom in sales. What used to be very small and niche is now massive. Before 2020 most people already in the hobby didn't own plate carriers, battle belts, helmets etc. Now that stuff is just as scarce as anything else.
[deleted]
I think your last assumption is correct. I've had something similar happen to me. I participate in ex-evangelical groups because of my childhood. And other groups highly critical of American conservative Christianity. Facebook floods my ads with appeals from conservative churches, conservative religious organizations, and for some reason thinks I'm deeply interested in Calvinism.
It's oddly reassuring. This shows FB doesn't know anything about what I want. At least, their ad algorithms don't. Feels like a very primitive response on their part.
Had something similar happen with journals of all things. Around 6 months ago, a friend of mine shared her new physical journal that she was proud of. Said she wanted to get back to writing her novel. I hit like or love to show support. Ever since then, there's been a massive deluge of ads for journals and various writer creativity tools. Even though I've never once sought out anything related to journals or creative writing.
It's oddly reassuring. This shows FB doesn't know anything about what I want. At least, their ad algorithms don't. Feels like a very primitive response on their part.
Had something similar happen with journals of all things. Around 6 months ago, a friend of mine shared her new physical journal that she was proud of. Said she wanted to get back to writing her novel. I hit like or love to show support. Ever since then, there's been a massive deluge of ads for journals and various writer creativity tools. Even though I've never once sought out anything related to journals or creative writing.
Ever since I started getting involved in Tarot/Reiki/Pagan groups, Facebook has started showing me advertisements for products very clearly designed for females despite me being male in both biology and identity.
What do they say when you click the "Why am I Seeing This Ad" button?
As an anecdote, since July they've started showing me ads for body armor almost nonstop whenever I actually open the app. Just the other day it was a body armor ad then an ad for a tactical communication earpiece.
I'm seeing adds for illegal pistol and rifle suppressors (aka "silencers") only barely disguised as "fuel filters" and "solvent traps".
The companies selling the suppressor kits claim they are legitimate auto parts. They clearly aren't.
Some people have claimed that it would be legal to buy these if you applied for a license to manufacture a suppressor, but good luck arguing that in federal court, especially since these are manufactured in China. Both the import of these goods, and buying without the correct federal license are felonies....
And yet they are all over Facebook. And people are buying them.
Here is the crazy thing. I enjoy shooting as a hobby, and could understand if FB chose to show me adds for legitimate firearm accessory companies.
I am not a car guy.
Either FB add targeting is terrible, or they can connect the dots between these obviously illegal "solvent traps" and people who are interested in firearms.
This isn't a post made by a random FB user, it's an ad on their ad network on their platform. At what point does FB facebook become culpable?
The companies selling the suppressor kits claim they are legitimate auto parts. They clearly aren't.
Some people have claimed that it would be legal to buy these if you applied for a license to manufacture a suppressor, but good luck arguing that in federal court, especially since these are manufactured in China. Both the import of these goods, and buying without the correct federal license are felonies....
And yet they are all over Facebook. And people are buying them.
Here is the crazy thing. I enjoy shooting as a hobby, and could understand if FB chose to show me adds for legitimate firearm accessory companies.
I am not a car guy.
Either FB add targeting is terrible, or they can connect the dots between these obviously illegal "solvent traps" and people who are interested in firearms.
This isn't a post made by a random FB user, it's an ad on their ad network on their platform. At what point does FB facebook become culpable?
Some people have claimed that it would be legal...
Over half a century of life might not have made me much of a programmer, but one thing it has taught me time and again is that if an amateur lawyer says something is “legal if...” and your gut said otherwise, go with your gut. It is as if they forget that the argument is not with me, but the hypothetical judge they’re going to stand before (as you point out).
Over half a century of life might not have made me much of a programmer, but one thing it has taught me time and again is that if an amateur lawyer says something is “legal if...” and your gut said otherwise, go with your gut. It is as if they forget that the argument is not with me, but the hypothetical judge they’re going to stand before (as you point out).
I'm going to be pedantic, but in the US, those silencer kits can be legal. There are requirements for the provenance of the components used in them (can't be imported) but until you drill out the bore they're solvent traps or fuel filters. And if you pay for a tax stamp and file the correct paperwork with the ATF, it's completely legal to transform those items into a firearm suppressor.
Good luck.
A lot of "if" statements in your comment.
The ones I saw were clearly not manufactured in the USA, and based on the comment sections were clearly understood to be suppressor components.
Lots of YouTube/internet "I'm not a lawyer, but..." comments floating out there.
Even if we were being extraordinary charitable, all plausible deniability goes out the window with even a cursory reading of the the description and the comments for these items.
A lot of "if" statements in your comment.
The ones I saw were clearly not manufactured in the USA, and based on the comment sections were clearly understood to be suppressor components.
Lots of YouTube/internet "I'm not a lawyer, but..." comments floating out there.
Even if we were being extraordinary charitable, all plausible deniability goes out the window with even a cursory reading of the the description and the comments for these items.
[deleted]
Man, you get to see all the cool ads. The first three ads on my feed this morning are for the internet provider I already use and two different pneumonia medications targeted at people 20-25 years older than me.
I guess my life is more boring than I thought or the Facebook containers on my computer and phone do a really good job of keeping FB in the dark.
I guess my life is more boring than I thought or the Facebook containers on my computer and phone do a really good job of keeping FB in the dark.
[deleted]
Or the company selling those solvent traps are targeting people that are interested in firearms?
Interestingly enough, after I reported the first two ads I was shown I clicked on a link that was supposed to show why I was targeted.
The companies had targeted me by gender and age, and a couple of other broad identifiers I cant remember, but nothing about my hobbies, search history, or political orientation.
It's possible that FB didn't show me all of the criteria used to target these ads.
That still doesn't take away from the question of at what point do they become culpable with facilitating a felony offense?
Just because something is hard to do at scale (in this case review ads for illegal behavior), doesn't absolve a company from the responsibility to act.
To be clear, I don't know the answer to this question. Parlor got dumped for not doing enough (and personally I'm okay with that), but how do we determine if Facebook is doing enough?
The companies had targeted me by gender and age, and a couple of other broad identifiers I cant remember, but nothing about my hobbies, search history, or political orientation.
It's possible that FB didn't show me all of the criteria used to target these ads.
That still doesn't take away from the question of at what point do they become culpable with facilitating a felony offense?
Just because something is hard to do at scale (in this case review ads for illegal behavior), doesn't absolve a company from the responsibility to act.
To be clear, I don't know the answer to this question. Parlor got dumped for not doing enough (and personally I'm okay with that), but how do we determine if Facebook is doing enough?
My guess would be people who Facebook has identified as similar to you clicked on the ads. It's like those "people also bought..." recommendations on Amazon: the algorithm doesn't understand causation, only correlation.
It seems plausible that FB's algorithms noticed a connection between the type of person interested in guns and the type of person that would engage with an ad for illegal, misnamed accessories.
Well, in that case, can I interest you in any keyboard cleaner, VHS head cleaner, or car wheel polisher?
(Not 100% sure of the last one, but I know I'm close.)
(Not 100% sure of the last one, but I know I'm close.)
As another anecdote, I've had the same ad targeting for this last week or so. (Which is really unfortunate timing.) At some point I must've clicked on the wrong article while seeing what the "other side" was up to. And now my feed is full of tacticool insurrectionist chic.
The most disconcerting to me was an ad showcasing a "tactical hooded trench coat"[0], with the model holding an AK in the FB ad. I mean, nobody is going hunting, or defending their home, with their tactical hooded trench coat. Seemed pretty squarely targeted at the aspiring insurrectionist crowd.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting people buy whatever strange clothes they want. If I have any point here it's that maybe FB doesn't get to claim the moral high ground when they're pushing ads using AKs as props, targeted at the crowd that stormed the capital (also, they need to fix their algorithm if they're pushing them to me).
[0]https://imgur.com/gallery/bxcK7zb
The most disconcerting to me was an ad showcasing a "tactical hooded trench coat"[0], with the model holding an AK in the FB ad. I mean, nobody is going hunting, or defending their home, with their tactical hooded trench coat. Seemed pretty squarely targeted at the aspiring insurrectionist crowd.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting people buy whatever strange clothes they want. If I have any point here it's that maybe FB doesn't get to claim the moral high ground when they're pushing ads using AKs as props, targeted at the crowd that stormed the capital (also, they need to fix their algorithm if they're pushing them to me).
[0]https://imgur.com/gallery/bxcK7zb
If Google Images is any indication a "tactical hooded trench coat" seems like exactly the kind of thing you see the HN demographic wearing while walking to work on a rainy day.
TBH I was expecting to see actual trench coats but they all seem like normal tight-ish fitting jackets in various grays, greens, browns and camo.
TBH I was expecting to see actual trench coats but they all seem like normal tight-ish fitting jackets in various grays, greens, browns and camo.
I can't find it anywhere anymore, even on their site. They must have realized they weren't reading the room well with the ad and modeling.
But I did screenshot it previously: https://imgur.com/gallery/bxcK7zb
If that's the look of the HN demographic, I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was.
But I did screenshot it previously: https://imgur.com/gallery/bxcK7zb
If that's the look of the HN demographic, I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was.
That looks to be fan art from the video game/book Stalker/roadside picnic (specifically a bandit) used for advertising whatever you'd actually get in the mail. If you reverse image search it a couple different variations of the image will pop up, a lot of which are less than reputable looking stores.[2][3]
[1]https://danielkquemist.artstation.com/projects/lVx8Ne?album_...
[2]https://www.nikiluwa.com/products/mens-tactical-hooded-jacke...
[3]https://www.blaroken.com/products/mens-tactical-hooded-jacke...
[1]https://danielkquemist.artstation.com/projects/lVx8Ne?album_...
[2]https://www.nikiluwa.com/products/mens-tactical-hooded-jacke...
[3]https://www.blaroken.com/products/mens-tactical-hooded-jacke...
Now that's much more like what I expected to see when you said "hooded tactical trench coat"
I was seeing stuff like this which albeit somewhat tacky doesn't exactly scream IRA like that does.
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1nW0maN_rK1RkHFqDq6yJAFXaa/Fre...
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB19LG5p3MPMeJjy1Xdq6ysrXXaY/Tac...
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oqoAAOSwGj9dpoA7/s-l300.jpg
https://image.dhgate.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g6-M01-FD-51-rBVaR1rw2...
I was seeing stuff like this which albeit somewhat tacky doesn't exactly scream IRA like that does.
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1nW0maN_rK1RkHFqDq6yJAFXaa/Fre...
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB19LG5p3MPMeJjy1Xdq6ysrXXaY/Tac...
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oqoAAOSwGj9dpoA7/s-l300.jpg
https://image.dhgate.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g6-M01-FD-51-rBVaR1rw2...
Their algorithm is just fine, you never get 100% accuracy in ML anyways.
People put those ads there and maintained them there for a reason, and that reason is those ads are working.
People put those ads there and maintained them there for a reason, and that reason is those ads are working.
I wonder how many dollars have been spent on bombarding you specifically with shit you're (probably) not interested in, instead of just randomly doing so (with a chance of success).
I don't know about Facebook (I don't use it) - but YouTube adverts do nothing but make me hate the products being advertised (and yes I give as much feedback as it will let me).
Edit: Fortunately I find Nigel Farage trying to sell me financial products fairly amusing...
Edit: Fortunately I find Nigel Farage trying to sell me financial products fairly amusing...
are facebook ads pay per click or pay per impression?
Both, they have several pricing models. Also cost per like, and cost per conversion (download). Maybe more.
https://www.webfx.com/social-media/how-much-does-facebook-ad....
https://www.webfx.com/social-media/how-much-does-facebook-ad....
The clever (as in, psychopathic, but clever) thing for Facebook to do is for them to show you more crazy "The lizard people are taking over, and they're going to eat all of us!" newsfeed stories so that you actually get brainwashed, join the other side, and buy the body armor to join the "Intifada". This way their paying customer, the advertiser, is satisfied...
I watched a gun video and I've been getting ads on YouTube for a backpack that folds out into body armor.
Calling body armor "Military Gear" as in "only the military should be able to buy body armor" is pretty sad, even by Buzzfeed extreme-left standards. Body armor can't kill anyone.
It's the back half of the arms race. Just wait until the industry for armor-piercing bullets gets ramped up. Look at the cold war arms race. Anti-missile technology just led to a massive increase in nuclear weapons production. If your enemies defenses are 90% effective at shooting down missiles, just launch 10x as many missiles! This why both the United States and Soviet Union peaked at over 30,000 nuclear warheads[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_sto...
Well if you don't wear bullet-proof armor, their switching over to armor piercing bullets doesn't put you in any more danger. If anything it's probably better than them using ammunition optimized for use against non-armored targets such as yourself.
Armor costs money and it's heavy. If armor piercing rounds become common, it's a total waste. It's pretty ridiculous that we are having this conversation about civilian life. What the heck is happening in this country?
As someone who isn't buying armor, it in no way hurts me that it's expensive and heavy, but every dollar they spend on armor or weapons to specifically fight people wearing armor instead of a dollar spent on weapons meant to kill people like me is an improvement. I won't say it's smart to buy body armor, it isn't, but it's still in my best interest to encourage the whack jobs to waste their money.
Wow, I might suggest de-escalation, but yeah, feed that bear some more crazy. That'll work out fine.
I would consider switching from weapons designed to be used against any innocent person to weapons designed specifically to deal with those looking for a fight to be de-escalation.
A better de-escalation would be to reduce the number of and need for weapons as well as counter hate speech and radicalization. I don't think body armor is going to do the trick, frankly.
(aside: this conversation has jumped the shark IMHO, so this is where I'm getting off. peace, literally)
(aside: this conversation has jumped the shark IMHO, so this is where I'm getting off. peace, literally)
Can you describe a typical scenario where a civilian might want to use body armor?
I understand that shooting high powered rifles is a lot of fun, so recreation makes sense with respect to weaponry, but I'm legitimately confused about why a civilian would ever want to own body armor. I can't imagine it's terribly comfortable to wear, and it doesn't seem very fun to me.
I understand that shooting high powered rifles is a lot of fun, so recreation makes sense with respect to weaponry, but I'm legitimately confused about why a civilian would ever want to own body armor. I can't imagine it's terribly comfortable to wear, and it doesn't seem very fun to me.
Really? You can't imagine any? Regardless of how unlikely it might be, there's a very real risk that shit's gonna go down in the next week and who knows what might happen. Even if nothing does happen, there's been an increasing amount of unrest in the past few years, it doesn't hurt to be prepared for the worst. You probably won't ever need to use the spare tire in your trunk, but it's reassuring to know that it's there if ever you need it.
I'd be interested in better understanding the threat model here - the scenario where it's actually useful.
Call it a failure of imagination, but to me it seems exceedingly unwise for a law abiding civilian to be entering a situation where body armor would be helpful (and I say this as a firearm owner).
Call it a failure of imagination, but to me it seems exceedingly unwise for a law abiding civilian to be entering a situation where body armor would be helpful (and I say this as a firearm owner).
I would think that any industry where shrapnel could be present:
Civilian weapons R&D, mining where explosives are being used, private security work, civilian firearm instruction, protection for targetted individuals e.g. Malcom X / MLK, Journalists in conflict zones (you saw them warn in DC during the protests as well)
Albiet the U.S. has and always will be a special case due to high firearm ownership and rather open ownership of those sorts of things.
Civilian weapons R&D, mining where explosives are being used, private security work, civilian firearm instruction, protection for targetted individuals e.g. Malcom X / MLK, Journalists in conflict zones (you saw them warn in DC during the protests as well)
Albiet the U.S. has and always will be a special case due to high firearm ownership and rather open ownership of those sorts of things.
The most baffling thing to me is the fact that body armor, and military grade weapons, are sold in USA...
Like, we're discussing ad delivery, not the fact that a country allows companies to sell all kinds of weapons, and equipment to the general public... so I think that accurate ad targeting is the least of the problems.
Like, we're discussing ad delivery, not the fact that a country allows companies to sell all kinds of weapons, and equipment to the general public... so I think that accurate ad targeting is the least of the problems.
Body armor, helmets and any sort of protective gear is legal in most parts of world, and I would bet any EU state (and in case of my EU country I can buy an AR-15 or any sort of semi-automatic weapon).
Such protective equipment might be legal in most parts of the world, but they have a small market - the ad in the article is selling it like any regular product... literally they say "The survival gear that you are missing!", like it's some pillow being sold for a good night sleep.
It's just odd.
>I would bet any EU state (and in case of my EU country I can buy an AR-15 or any sort of semi-automatic weapon)
Well in the case of my EU country we can't buy AR-15 or any semi-automatic rifle. The weapons owned here are mostly for hunting, not for sports/self defense.
It's just odd.
>I would bet any EU state (and in case of my EU country I can buy an AR-15 or any sort of semi-automatic weapon)
Well in the case of my EU country we can't buy AR-15 or any semi-automatic rifle. The weapons owned here are mostly for hunting, not for sports/self defense.
Survival / military e-shops are quite popular in EU, although they mostly target people that play airsoft, do reenactment, survival, bushcraft and so on. Preparing for a coup or for protection against the government is not a standard target group in Europe :-).
In Slovakia and Czech republic you can own basically any short or long weapon and any caliber as long as it's not full-auto. But you can of course only bring it to an official shooting range or match. Owning a weapon for self defense is possible for regular citizen and you can carry it with you (only concealed), but only for short weapons (pistols, revolvers). But it's not a constitutional right, it's a privilege and you have to meet certain condition. It's a longer topic. But I wanted to say that even though we have a lot of weapons, the gun crime rate is extremely low. Maybe that's also because every gun is registered, you have to take all the exams (medical, psychological, background check, weapon law test) and so on... It's also forbidden to bring a weapon (even if concealed) to a protest, your weapon license would be taken and say good bye to your guns.
Weapons in hands of citizen doesn't equal to gun crime (also check Switzerland), but I am also not a proponent of constitutional right for everyone to carry a weapon.
So it's maybe similar to social networks - they can become a danger if they are not regulated (same as weapons, if they are unregulated and freely available).
Could you say what country?
Because I might even bet that yes, you most definitely can buy an AR15 or any semiautomatic rifle just fine.
Because I might even bet that yes, you most definitely can buy an AR15 or any semiautomatic rifle just fine.
Ah yes, I'm from Portugal!
Yes, you can buy AR15s and other semiautomatic rifles in Portugal.
Most of Europe allows sports shooting, for example (from the top of my hear what I know for sure): Finland Sweden Norway Estonia Czech Republic Poland Germany France Italy Switzerland Austria Spain
And I haven't even put research into the rest of the countries
Most of Europe allows sports shooting, for example (from the top of my hear what I know for sure): Finland Sweden Norway Estonia Czech Republic Poland Germany France Italy Switzerland Austria Spain
And I haven't even put research into the rest of the countries
You can not buy semiautomatic rifles in Portugal, even if you are a collector I think but for that you might need to have some sort of special requirement.
These are the types of licences we have: http://armas.mai-gov.info/obtencao-de-licencas/
Now you can buy weapons of the same caliber, for hunting (but you need hunting licensing).
Edit: Ok I need to clarify this. Because we have a different name for specific weapons.
Here we can sell semiautomatic rifles (we call them "carabinas", I didn't label them as rifles so my bad), for hunting (a specific class, for boars, deer, etc). The thing is every weapon that's imported in Portugal gets and inspection and a classification if it's a military weapon or not. An AR15 is considered a military grade weapon by our government standards.
So yes, you can buy some specific models of semiautomatic rifles (for hunting), but you can't buy military grade semiautomatic rifles.
You can't buy an AR15.
These are the types of licences we have: http://armas.mai-gov.info/obtencao-de-licencas/
Now you can buy weapons of the same caliber, for hunting (but you need hunting licensing).
Edit: Ok I need to clarify this. Because we have a different name for specific weapons.
Here we can sell semiautomatic rifles (we call them "carabinas", I didn't label them as rifles so my bad), for hunting (a specific class, for boars, deer, etc). The thing is every weapon that's imported in Portugal gets and inspection and a classification if it's a military weapon or not. An AR15 is considered a military grade weapon by our government standards.
So yes, you can buy some specific models of semiautomatic rifles (for hunting), but you can't buy military grade semiautomatic rifles.
You can't buy an AR15.
I know the argument here has been towards being able to buy or not a specific platform (AR-15), but I would like to address this:
> So yes, you can buy some specific models of semiautomatic rifles (for hunting), but you can't buy military grade semiautomatic rifles
The semi-automatic rifles that you can buy in Portugal include the Remington 700 and the Thompson Performance Center T/C. Both can come chambered in .308 Win or 6.5 Creedmoor. Those cartridges have an immense stopping power and are significantly more powerful than the usual .223/5.56 you see in the AR-15 platform. Looking at hunting stores from Portugal, you can easily see those two rifles with 5 or 10 round magazines, same limits as the AR-15 in California.
The Remington 700 has been widely used by the military all over the world, including the US. The M24 sniper rifle is the Remington 700, but with a heavier barrel (in order to use .300 Win which the US Marine Corps preferred).
So, why is in your opinion the AR-15 platform "military grade", and the hunting rifles available in Portugal not? Knowing that both platforms have been used by the military in combat situations, and knowing the hunting platforms usually have much more powerful cartridges?
> So yes, you can buy some specific models of semiautomatic rifles (for hunting), but you can't buy military grade semiautomatic rifles
The semi-automatic rifles that you can buy in Portugal include the Remington 700 and the Thompson Performance Center T/C. Both can come chambered in .308 Win or 6.5 Creedmoor. Those cartridges have an immense stopping power and are significantly more powerful than the usual .223/5.56 you see in the AR-15 platform. Looking at hunting stores from Portugal, you can easily see those two rifles with 5 or 10 round magazines, same limits as the AR-15 in California.
The Remington 700 has been widely used by the military all over the world, including the US. The M24 sniper rifle is the Remington 700, but with a heavier barrel (in order to use .300 Win which the US Marine Corps preferred).
So, why is in your opinion the AR-15 platform "military grade", and the hunting rifles available in Portugal not? Knowing that both platforms have been used by the military in combat situations, and knowing the hunting platforms usually have much more powerful cartridges?
>So, why is in your opinion the AR-15 platform "military grade", and the hunting rifles available in Portugal not? Knowing that both platforms have been used by the military in combat situations, and knowing the hunting platforms usually have much more powerful cartridges?
This is a question you'd need to ask to the portuguese authority that manages weapons importation at the customs, which curiously, it's a procedure that must be done in the presence of a customs oficial, an expert of the Police (PSP), and the General Management of Weaponry and Defense Equipment (Direcção-Geral de Armamento e Equipamento de Defesa).
So I think it's their opinion and expertise that dictates such decisions? No idea! But I don't see it written anywhere that such specific weapon/platform is banned/forbidden.
Curious fact, just came across this information, apparently not so long ago civilians could buy fully automatic rifles in Portugal , you just had to belong to a "club"! It was one of the few countries that allowed that, like Pakistan an Yemen - I had no ideia just found this out. Law changed from pressure of EU and UN.
This is a question you'd need to ask to the portuguese authority that manages weapons importation at the customs, which curiously, it's a procedure that must be done in the presence of a customs oficial, an expert of the Police (PSP), and the General Management of Weaponry and Defense Equipment (Direcção-Geral de Armamento e Equipamento de Defesa).
So I think it's their opinion and expertise that dictates such decisions? No idea! But I don't see it written anywhere that such specific weapon/platform is banned/forbidden.
Curious fact, just came across this information, apparently not so long ago civilians could buy fully automatic rifles in Portugal , you just had to belong to a "club"! It was one of the few countries that allowed that, like Pakistan an Yemen - I had no ideia just found this out. Law changed from pressure of EU and UN.
Gun clubs are popular in Europe. In France, until very recently (2017), you could buy an MG42 or a Browning M2. If you bought it before that date, you can still have it, but now full auto is no longer allowed. There are no restrictions on platforms or types of weapons, only on caliber.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr%C3%B4le_des_armes_%C3%A0...
In Switzerland, on the other hand, you can have full auto. Europe is not a gun-free zone like Americans seem to think, from both sides of the aisle.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr%C3%B4le_des_armes_%C3%A0...
In Switzerland, on the other hand, you can have full auto. Europe is not a gun-free zone like Americans seem to think, from both sides of the aisle.
But the stance is quite different, owning a gun is not a right but more like a privilege.
And they're not objects for public display.
And they're not objects for public display.
http://www.soldiers-almada.com/Armas
Seems to be selling AR15s just fine.
And "military grade ar15" is not a thing.
Seems to be selling AR15s just fine.
And "military grade ar15" is not a thing.
Just because they sell it, doesn't mean everyone can buy them: you have difference licences for different uses. And not all licenses are available to everyone.
Some licenses are strictly for law enforcement for example.
I didn't say military grade ar15 is thing, i said our authorities can consider that a weapon is for military use. It's their call, not mine, or yours.
Some licenses are strictly for law enforcement for example.
I didn't say military grade ar15 is thing, i said our authorities can consider that a weapon is for military use. It's their call, not mine, or yours.
That's completely besides the point. One _can_ buy AR15s in Portugal. Yes it takes jumping through hoops, but it's entirely possible.
If you don't mean what you say then don't say it.
If you don't mean what you say then don't say it.
Ah so after all you have to do things to circumvent some obstacles set in place. What are those?
I didn't say i didn't meant to say, I'm saying what's in our law.
I didn't say i didn't meant to say, I'm saying what's in our law.
For body armor and certain kinds of weapons and attachments, one needs a Class III license. They are not available to the general public, as you wrote.
EDIT: I'm wrong on body armor. I could have sworn at least some of it was restricted and required a license.
EDIT: I'm wrong on body armor. I could have sworn at least some of it was restricted and required a license.
Thank you for correcting me.
I will say that for a law abiding citizen, there's really no real road block to getting a Class III. However, only very few people bother to do it.
In so far as to how dangerous it is, there are 630,000 legal full-auto/select-fire weapons in the US. They do require a Class III license to purchase and own and there have been no new ones since 1986. As I recall, of those 630,000, only 3 have been used illegally since 1934 and 2 of those were, ironically, by cops.
In so far as to how dangerous it is, there are 630,000 legal full-auto/select-fire weapons in the US. They do require a Class III license to purchase and own and there have been no new ones since 1986. As I recall, of those 630,000, only 3 have been used illegally since 1934 and 2 of those were, ironically, by cops.
>As I recall, of those 630,000, only 3 have been used illegally since 1934 and 2 of those were, ironically, by cops.
Still, as shown by the media at least, weapons became an accessory in protests and public manifestations over the past... 4 years? Even though they're not used, people have demonstrations of power by presenting their weapons.
But again, my culture is very different from USA, so it's hard for me to grasp such thing.
Still, as shown by the media at least, weapons became an accessory in protests and public manifestations over the past... 4 years? Even though they're not used, people have demonstrations of power by presenting their weapons.
But again, my culture is very different from USA, so it's hard for me to grasp such thing.
Despite what your TV told you, military grade fully automatic weapons are 50 state illegal in the United States. Civilians may not own them.
The scary guns you see on TV just LOOK like military weapons, they don't FUNCTION like them.
The scary guns you see on TV just LOOK like military weapons, they don't FUNCTION like them.
Automatic weapons are legal in most states, they're just an NFA item and need to have been manufactured + registered prior to 1986. (And due to this, they're expensive as all hell - think $10k for a gun that sold for ~$120 new in 1980 - and to the best of my knowledge have only been used in two murders since 1934, of which one was a police officer killing a police informant)
You can buy body armor in Portugual too: http://www.engardeportugal.com/produtos.htm
And apparently it is much needed:
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/procurado-por-tenta...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/homem-ameaca-mulher...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/gnr-em-alerta-maxim...
And apparently it is much needed:
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/procurado-por-tenta...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/homem-ameaca-mulher...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/gnr-em-alerta-maxim...
Nah, not needed at all. Such scuffs do happen but are very rare, usually revolve around some sort of treason - wife/friend/land dispute.
Plus we don't have terrorist attacks (domestic and foreigners), we don't have religion fanatics that go on killing sprees, we have a good public healthcare system that helps mentally hill (we don't have serial killers, and the ones we had didn't achieve the pop culture status), we have drug addiction under control, so yeah... it's really not useful to have body armor.
Just to give you some perspective - I live for 11 years in the capital, and even lived near a social project where there was shady people and A LOT of police activity, and never heard a single gun shot.
Plus we don't have terrorist attacks (domestic and foreigners), we don't have religion fanatics that go on killing sprees, we have a good public healthcare system that helps mentally hill (we don't have serial killers, and the ones we had didn't achieve the pop culture status), we have drug addiction under control, so yeah... it's really not useful to have body armor.
Just to give you some perspective - I live for 11 years in the capital, and even lived near a social project where there was shady people and A LOT of police activity, and never heard a single gun shot.
I totally understand it is not needed, this was a straw man intended to detract from the idea that body armor is something alien and unnecessary for the general public.
It is a personal protection item like any other. Is it useful in New York City or Lisbon? Probably not. But the same applies to other PPEs and we don't shame people for wanting to buy/use them. If a person feels safer using X, then fine, use it.
As a society we used to mock people that bought Gas Masks and Respirators, marginalizing them as crazy. Then 2020 happened and all of a sudden every single gas mask, including useless old surplus, was out of stock.
It is a personal protection item like any other. Is it useful in New York City or Lisbon? Probably not. But the same applies to other PPEs and we don't shame people for wanting to buy/use them. If a person feels safer using X, then fine, use it.
As a society we used to mock people that bought Gas Masks and Respirators, marginalizing them as crazy. Then 2020 happened and all of a sudden every single gas mask, including useless old surplus, was out of stock.
Where did I mock people who feel safe for wearing a bullet proof vest?
Being odd doesn't mean it's ridiculous, or preposterous, means it's strange to me and my reality. Strange doesn't mean it's good or bad, means it's strange.
Being odd doesn't mean it's ridiculous, or preposterous, means it's strange to me and my reality. Strange doesn't mean it's good or bad, means it's strange.
Yes, me eyes were rolling when I was reading that. I understand the issue when inappropriate Ads are shown for the specific context. This can happen not just with "military" / tacticool gear but anything else, I have seen this happen many times. But pointing our that this is military gear and it's some sort of intentional case (because it's military gear) is a ridiculous reporter hyperbole.
Yup, ethically questionable yet likely effective ad placement happens in damn near every product category. The algos are too dumb to understand ethics but not too dumb that diet pills get more clicks when you put them beside videos about anorexia and "influences" who have photoshopped their bikini pics.
Now the BuzzFeed article can be cited by other journalists/opinion writers and politicians when they weave the case for banning Y or Z. That's the same path that transformed run-of-the-mill rifles into scary "assault weapons."
Any adversary to someone wearing body armor now has to increase their DPS, so to speak, should there be an incident.
I think the problem is more in microtargeting than in anything else.
Once upon a time, advertisers would struggle to create an ad campaign that had broad appeal, that was disseminated broadly. Think Budweiser Frogs and other superbowl commercials. Now a campaign can be targeted to divorced white men over 40 whose ex's have remarried and consist of allusions to the false fact that jerks like your ex's new husband drink Miller, therefore you should drink Bud.
What is bad is with A_B testing, machine learning and low cost targeting, the process of creating those campaign gets easier. When applied to politics it gets even worse. Because now you can target your racists message to just the racists, and your wholesome family message to soccer moms, safe in the knowledge that these contradictory messages will never been seen by the wrong audience thanks to Facebook et. al.
So of course ads for tactical gear are going to show up next to insurrection posts by the kookitariat and ads for homesafety will show up next to cat picture posts by soccer moms - even if it is the same company selling the same products.
Once upon a time, advertisers would struggle to create an ad campaign that had broad appeal, that was disseminated broadly. Think Budweiser Frogs and other superbowl commercials. Now a campaign can be targeted to divorced white men over 40 whose ex's have remarried and consist of allusions to the false fact that jerks like your ex's new husband drink Miller, therefore you should drink Bud.
What is bad is with A_B testing, machine learning and low cost targeting, the process of creating those campaign gets easier. When applied to politics it gets even worse. Because now you can target your racists message to just the racists, and your wholesome family message to soccer moms, safe in the knowledge that these contradictory messages will never been seen by the wrong audience thanks to Facebook et. al.
So of course ads for tactical gear are going to show up next to insurrection posts by the kookitariat and ads for homesafety will show up next to cat picture posts by soccer moms - even if it is the same company selling the same products.
Yes, Facebook is still love-hated by so many because their algorithms are outstanding for finding potential customers. There is no doubt about that, at least for trained conversion campaigns.
True. The title of the article could be 'Facebook Has Been Showing Relevant Ads Next To "Insurrection" Posts'.
According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down.
Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.
Edit: wow, that blew up. For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down, and I don't think Parler should have either. I'm rather anti-social media, so I've never used either. We should have better reasons for doing things, and stick to them. Section 230 exists for a reason.
I'm no Facebook fan or apologist, but I do think there's a distinction between failing to moderate perfectly (or even well) and refusing to even attempt to moderate.
This isn't failure of anything. It's targeted advertising. They meant to do that. The system is working, "as advertised."
This is a failure of targeted advertising. Do you think Facebook would approve this if they had a human looking at the algorithm?
Yes. Targeted advertisement, and the resulting money, is the entire purpose of Facebook. Automation just makes the process faster. And cheaper; you know, that whole money thing.
I abhor both Parler and Facebook. In the context of these threads, I don't think either has done anything illegal, which is what passes for "ethics" in our economy. Of course IANAL.
I don't think Apple, Google and Amazon did anything illegal to Parler. And until these kinds of companies are legally and explicitly made into utilities, I don't think we can expect them to do anything except whatever they want.
I abhor both Parler and Facebook. In the context of these threads, I don't think either has done anything illegal, which is what passes for "ethics" in our economy. Of course IANAL.
I don't think Apple, Google and Amazon did anything illegal to Parler. And until these kinds of companies are legally and explicitly made into utilities, I don't think we can expect them to do anything except whatever they want.
They want to target their ads in general, but they don't actually want to sell military gear to insurrectionists. It was just the AI working too well. Once they noticed, they have now blanket banned such ads until after the inauguration:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-facebo...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protests-facebo...
Parler did have moderation. What platform are you referring to here?
Parler had a moderation process. It verifiably failed to actually prevent violent rhetoric (c.f. Lin Wood calling for Pence's execution days before the crowd took the capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence!").
In this interview (audio, but there's a transcript) Matze details some of it, and basically explains that violent-but-popular content is going to be left up because of "free speech": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...
In this interview (audio, but there's a transcript) Matze details some of it, and basically explains that violent-but-popular content is going to be left up because of "free speech": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher...
>It verifiably failed to actually prevent violent rhetoric
How do you suppose you prevent violent rhetoric? You can only react to it.
And if that's the baseline, Facebook and Twitter have far more objectionable content yet-to-be-removed.
How do you suppose you prevent violent rhetoric? You can only react to it.
And if that's the baseline, Facebook and Twitter have far more objectionable content yet-to-be-removed.
> How do you suppose you prevent violent rhetoric? You can only react to it.
Look around you. Right here on HN, we discuss politics. We're doing it right now. Yet... no violence. And the reason is moderation. The moderators remove violent commenters and the community shuns them. Clearly HN/dang have been able to "prevent violent rhetoric". It works.
And Facebook and Twitter are doing OK right now. Both were very late to the game, but are engaged in a heroic effort right now to clean up their communities. In fact it was something of a left-Twitter running gag over the past week to giggle at conservatives complaining about their follower count suddenly dropping.
But Parler did no such thing. So outside forces had to apply the moderation.
Look around you. Right here on HN, we discuss politics. We're doing it right now. Yet... no violence. And the reason is moderation. The moderators remove violent commenters and the community shuns them. Clearly HN/dang have been able to "prevent violent rhetoric". It works.
And Facebook and Twitter are doing OK right now. Both were very late to the game, but are engaged in a heroic effort right now to clean up their communities. In fact it was something of a left-Twitter running gag over the past week to giggle at conservatives complaining about their follower count suddenly dropping.
But Parler did no such thing. So outside forces had to apply the moderation.
Parler had deleted several of Wood's posts, and a number of users had used the "report" function to raise the flag to Parler management. I think he was close to being banned.
That particular post was still up when the site went down, I believe. I mean, sure, it's possible they would have gotten better. But this wasn't an abstract issue, we'd just had an attack on congress and there was (and remains) serious worry that something similar or worse would happen at the inauguration. Certainly the rhetoric on the site had not significantly moderated in the few days between the capitol riot and their ban.
Referring to the straw man platform, obviously.
Clearly Facebook's systems are able to associate correct ads based on the semantics of the content. Since this is true, why can't those systems moderate said content?
If I assume that they are operating in good faith, false positives versus false negatives. Showing the wrong advert loses you a few pennies each time, incorrectly blocking legitimate content has a power-law distribution of cost in political capital, depending on whose stuff you block.
I don’t trust FB enough to want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this would still be true if I did.
I don’t trust FB enough to want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this would still be true if I did.
Parler’s chief policy officer contends that they were (1) actively hiring content moderators (to augment their jury system) and (2) working with Amazon to get AWS AI facilities so they could implement automated moderation. These programs were in progress right up until the site went down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000r4vm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000r4vm
Incitement to terrorism isn't something where failing to moderate perfectly should be tolerated.
There is already a zero-tolerance approach to numerous extremist groups, regardless of whether they are active on American soil or not. Why should this be treated any differently?
There is already a zero-tolerance approach to numerous extremist groups, regardless of whether they are active on American soil or not. Why should this be treated any differently?
>Why should this be treated any differently?
Being as how Twitter isn't shutdown for the same offense, I'm also curious as to why Parler was "treated differently"?
Political pressure, period.
Being as how Twitter isn't shutdown for the same offense, I'm also curious as to why Parler was "treated differently"?
Political pressure, period.
Twitter can claim to make a good-faith effort to reduce misinformation, and threats of violence and incitements to terrorism are taken down quickly.
Parler's raison d'etre is that it makes no such efforts. From the AWS team's motion to dismiss:
"There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition."
From: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_Distric...
Parler's raison d'etre is that it makes no such efforts. From the AWS team's motion to dismiss:
"There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition."
From: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_Distric...
> Why should this be treated any differently?
Obviously this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is an elephant-in-the room kind of thing so I think it needs to be said:
The reason is that the overlap between "extremism" and our (now) minority political party is so large as to have muddled the distinction. Per one poll, 45% of Trump voters approve of the sacking of the capitol. It's really not possible to distinguish people who merely post angry political speech and the ones who stray into extremist rhetoric about revolution and violence. The same people are doing all of it.
So right now, "moderating communities with extreme content" simply looks a lot like "censoring republicans". But... I don't see how that gets better by outlawing the moderation. Republicans need to fix their rhetoric first.
Obviously this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is an elephant-in-the room kind of thing so I think it needs to be said:
The reason is that the overlap between "extremism" and our (now) minority political party is so large as to have muddled the distinction. Per one poll, 45% of Trump voters approve of the sacking of the capitol. It's really not possible to distinguish people who merely post angry political speech and the ones who stray into extremist rhetoric about revolution and violence. The same people are doing all of it.
So right now, "moderating communities with extreme content" simply looks a lot like "censoring republicans". But... I don't see how that gets better by outlawing the moderation. Republicans need to fix their rhetoric first.
> I do think there's a distinction between failing to moderate perfectly (or even well) and refusing to even attempt to moderate.
That may be a distinction without a difference. What company failed to even attempt to moderate?
That may be a distinction without a difference. What company failed to even attempt to moderate?
Various advertising companies have temporarily withdrawn from FB over the years precisely because of issues like this. Most famously and recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Facebook_ad_boycotts
> For the record, I don't think Facebook should be shut down.
That's cool, I'm down for making all social media apps illegal. Today.
We've given guns to chimpanzees. Perhaps the human race needs to mature a little before we're shoving our entire lives into everyone else's face. Turns out that despite having more things in common than not, we still don't like each other very much.
10 years ago, most of the American left and center were shouting at banks about being the 99%. In the wake of that, these apps have been used to divide and conquer us. They've turned us against each other. Our best hope is to shun these tools en masse.
That's cool, I'm down for making all social media apps illegal. Today.
We've given guns to chimpanzees. Perhaps the human race needs to mature a little before we're shoving our entire lives into everyone else's face. Turns out that despite having more things in common than not, we still don't like each other very much.
10 years ago, most of the American left and center were shouting at banks about being the 99%. In the wake of that, these apps have been used to divide and conquer us. They've turned us against each other. Our best hope is to shun these tools en masse.
There’s a difference between what happened to Parler (vendors refusing to do business with them) and Facebook (relatively more self reliant).
Isn't Facebook dependent on backbone service providers at their data centers? Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service?
Edit: For a multitude of reasons - money, money, and money - I don't expect any vendors would discontinue service with Facebook. The question is more of a thought exercise.
Edit: For a multitude of reasons - money, money, and money - I don't expect any vendors would discontinue service with Facebook. The question is more of a thought exercise.
> Are those vendors at liberty to discontinue service?
Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.
Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.
> Depends on their contracts and that’s all it depends on.
That's not true. Laws supercede contracts. You cannot write a contract that creates new law between parties.
That's not true. Laws supercede contracts. You cannot write a contract that creates new law between parties.
There is no relevant law that would require Facebook or Parler to do any moderation because of Section 230, right?
That's not correct, as I understand it. Section 230 says that you can't be held liable for content on your site that you did not create yourself, even if you generally moderate your content (i.e. are not just a common carrier).
But there are still laws that require you to _remove_ certain content (child porn comes to mind, but also material that infringes copyrights, etc) once you are aware of it.
Concretely, given this sequence of events:
1. You have a web site that allows people to post pictures. You moderate them some.
2. Someone who is not you or one of your employees/contractors posts child porn.
3. Before your moderators notice it, someone else sees it and reports it to the FBI.
4. You remove the child porn (based on normal moderation getting to it, or you getting notified by the person from item 3 or by the FBI).
my understanding is that Section 230 means that there is no legal liability on your part, as long as step 4 actually happens once you become aware of the content.
But there are still laws that require you to _remove_ certain content (child porn comes to mind, but also material that infringes copyrights, etc) once you are aware of it.
Concretely, given this sequence of events:
1. You have a web site that allows people to post pictures. You moderate them some.
2. Someone who is not you or one of your employees/contractors posts child porn.
3. Before your moderators notice it, someone else sees it and reports it to the FBI.
4. You remove the child porn (based on normal moderation getting to it, or you getting notified by the person from item 3 or by the FBI).
my understanding is that Section 230 means that there is no legal liability on your part, as long as step 4 actually happens once you become aware of the content.
Sorry, "any moderation" might have been a bit of a stretch. I definitely could have worded that better. If the authorities find it and tell you to take it down, you would obviously still have to comply. I just meant that I don't think it requires you to be proactive and monitor for things like that. You just have to react. Amazon was upset that Parler wasn't be proactive enough, not that it wasn't complying with court orders or something. I don't think Parler did anything illegal, so it would just all be up to their contracts.
You are talking about something different. I had replied to a comment which said Facebook breaking the contract they have with their backbone provider is the only way their provider can terminate the connection. That's clearly false. There are many laws outside of the CDA.
[deleted]
> According to modern zeitgeist, if Facebook can't be trusted to moderate their users, Facebook should be deplatformed and shut down.
They've got (poorly paid and treated) human mods for user interactions, but apparently ad mods aren't a thing with them.
So I'm largely in the same camp; if they're enabling armed insurrection by white supremacists (or extremists in the middle east, etc), Facebook should be boycotted by their partners.
That's what happened with Parler. Facebook's more likely to weather the storm. Parler evidently wasn't able to.
They've got (poorly paid and treated) human mods for user interactions, but apparently ad mods aren't a thing with them.
So I'm largely in the same camp; if they're enabling armed insurrection by white supremacists (or extremists in the middle east, etc), Facebook should be boycotted by their partners.
That's what happened with Parler. Facebook's more likely to weather the storm. Parler evidently wasn't able to.
How much of the ad spend is coming from PAC's with unrestrained fundraising abilities, and dark money sources? Cut off that money supply with election reform and a lot of these ad network problems coupled to political polarization become a lot smaller.
Facebook's vendors are free to do that. Some might. Some might not. Absolutely their choice, in any context.
I for one would be ok with that.
How to moderate Facebook and make sure there is no illegal content is a big topic in Europe.
Some open problems:
* Nazi propaganda * Content that's dangerous to the development of children (violence, eating disorders, ...) * Sexual harassment * Libel and slander
So yes, take that together with Facebooks data transfers across the Atlantic and there is a real chance of Facebook shutting down in Europe.
Some open problems:
* Nazi propaganda * Content that's dangerous to the development of children (violence, eating disorders, ...) * Sexual harassment * Libel and slander
So yes, take that together with Facebooks data transfers across the Atlantic and there is a real chance of Facebook shutting down in Europe.
Parler rented all their infrastructure from companies that get to choose how their infrastructure gets used. Private companies can run themselves as they please.
Facebook owns all their own infrastructure and gets the final say on how their infrastructure is used. Private companies can run themselves as they please.
If you violate the terms of your rental agreement, your landlord gets to kick you out. If you can't afford to own your own infrastructure, you answer to those who do.
Welcome to Capitalism.
Facebook owns all their own infrastructure and gets the final say on how their infrastructure is used. Private companies can run themselves as they please.
If you violate the terms of your rental agreement, your landlord gets to kick you out. If you can't afford to own your own infrastructure, you answer to those who do.
Welcome to Capitalism.
I think it's obvious that private companies should not be able to 'run themselves as they please'.
Also in my country landlords can't kick renters out if they disagree politically. I think that's a good thing. Maybe similar regulation should apply to infrastructure providers.
Also in my country landlords can't kick renters out if they disagree politically. I think that's a good thing. Maybe similar regulation should apply to infrastructure providers.
Parler wasn't kicked off AWS because of a political disagreement. It was kicked off for multiple terms of service violations and unwillingness to adequately moderate its platform to ensure that further ToS violations didn't occur.
Surely in your can get kicked out of your rental if you violate the lease. Especially if your landlord sits down with you and discusses the issues and you still can't commit to not violating your lease.
I can get evicted from my rental if I don't have renter's insurance. Let's suppose my landlord sat down with me and said: '[name], you are in violation of your lease agreement without renter's insurance.'
If my response is 'well, I'll find someone to volunteer to look for renter's insurance for me', I would expect to be evicted. And I'm not even facilitating or enabling people to openly advocate and plan for violent overthrow of a democracy on my property.
Surely in your can get kicked out of your rental if you violate the lease. Especially if your landlord sits down with you and discusses the issues and you still can't commit to not violating your lease.
I can get evicted from my rental if I don't have renter's insurance. Let's suppose my landlord sat down with me and said: '[name], you are in violation of your lease agreement without renter's insurance.'
If my response is 'well, I'll find someone to volunteer to look for renter's insurance for me', I would expect to be evicted. And I'm not even facilitating or enabling people to openly advocate and plan for violent overthrow of a democracy on my property.
> Parler wasn't kicked off AWS because of a political disagreement. It was kicked off for multiple terms of service violations and unwillingness to adequately moderate its platform to ensure that further ToS violations didn't occur.
It's a little strange, then, how Amazon took Parler's money until a day after others deplatformed Parler right after the election. Amazon's decision doesn't seem as arms-length and independent as you believe.
It's a little strange, then, how Amazon took Parler's money until a day after others deplatformed Parler right after the election. Amazon's decision doesn't seem as arms-length and independent as you believe.
This is the actual email that AWS sent to Parler informing them of its intent to suspend Parler: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...
Quoting AWS's literal rationale:
> Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. [...] This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but you plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts.
Quoting AWS's literal rationale:
> Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. [...] This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but you plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts.
Thanks!
The decision wasn't political. It was based on repeated terms of service violations (as proven by the emails from AWS that Parler itself leaked).
Whether AWS was able to make that decision because of the political calculus had changed (e.g. there was demonstrable evidence of real-life violence stemming from plans made on Parler; others had taken action against Parler; AWS's employees were publicly calling for Parler to be removed from AWS) -- that's a different question.
The timing can be political but the decision apolitical.
This is ignoring that Parler's continued prior existence was likely in part due to the politics (i.e. American conservative allegations that Big Tech's pervasively censors right-wing and Republican voices).
Whether AWS was able to make that decision because of the political calculus had changed (e.g. there was demonstrable evidence of real-life violence stemming from plans made on Parler; others had taken action against Parler; AWS's employees were publicly calling for Parler to be removed from AWS) -- that's a different question.
The timing can be political but the decision apolitical.
This is ignoring that Parler's continued prior existence was likely in part due to the politics (i.e. American conservative allegations that Big Tech's pervasively censors right-wing and Republican voices).
Can a baker in your country decline to decorate a cake with a message of hate?
Political alignment or ideology is not a protected class - that's the lone reason they were able to do this. If they would have shut down or refused business to say, a company promoting the interests of Hispanics, the platforms refusing business would have been sued into oblivion. "Private companies can run themselves as they please." is disingenuous, and tossing that statement around carelessly is not aiding discourse. Private companies have rules they have to abide by, just as restaurants do at the moment.
They are in both app stores. Parler was removed.
These are ads so it's ok.
It's only when it's the people that it's the problem.
It's never the 1%.
I miss the occupy movement, at least they talked sense.
It's only when it's the people that it's the problem.
It's never the 1%.
I miss the occupy movement, at least they talked sense.
Working as intended. Until Facebook gets too much heat for it. Then they'll apologize while counting all the money they made off engagement and targeted ads relating to insurrection.
One thing worth considering is that a lot of the people at the capitol were extremely tacti-cool, so regulation or not, this is probably not unexpected.
I remember seeing ads for sniper scopes on web pages about spring(the framework) scope. But this was in 2010..
What did you expect the algos to show? Teddy bears?
We all know what kind of people went there and even a simple Linear Regression can figure out this correlation :).
We all know what kind of people went there and even a simple Linear Regression can figure out this correlation :).
>What did you expect the algos to show? Teddy bears?
Junk I actually want to buy might be a good start.
Junk I actually want to buy might be a good start.
Try tinyheadedkingdom.com
FWIW I have also seen the same body armor ads but have not seen insurrection posts. In addition, I've seen ads for gun cleaning supplies, rifle scopes, tactical equipment, dad-bod t-shirts, fish hook removal equipment, and day trading algos bots.
Just another sign that the core of every tech company's executive leadership is the drive to build a machine with one instruction: make us as much money as possible. They'd happily tuck this machine away in the basement and eliminate the human supervision as a "cost" if they could. At heart, they really don't care what the machine does. And the engineers? Let's hope they automate themselves away eventually! They're always demanding payraises and causing a stink. Instruction side condition: keep engineers busy with scaling up, try not to get us into trouble.
Worked on me. I just bought some AR500 plate armor. Better safe than sorry in today's world. I don't see any downside to buying body armor.
AR500 and any steel ballistic armor is a liability. It may stop the bullets, or maybe it wont. You cant be sure its not NIJ certified. But even if it did AR500 has the bad side effect of making the bullet fragment, the bits them flying perpendicular to the plate into your crotch and neck. They will apply truck bed liner and claim this "spall liner" prevents it but it doesn't really.
The same companies that make body armor for the military and police, Hesco and RMA also sell to civilians. The NIJ also helpfully provides a list on their website of all currently certified body armor that passes their test. If its NIJ certified then it is deemed acceptable for law enforcement units in the US to use it.
AR500 the company has only one product on the NIJ's CPL and its their most expensive plate and its ceramic like all real plates, not steel.
The body armor industry has a history of a lot of shady dealings and AR500 is only the latest chapter. They pay youtube gun influencers to make videos that make their products look good.
The same companies that make body armor for the military and police, Hesco and RMA also sell to civilians. The NIJ also helpfully provides a list on their website of all currently certified body armor that passes their test. If its NIJ certified then it is deemed acceptable for law enforcement units in the US to use it.
AR500 the company has only one product on the NIJ's CPL and its their most expensive plate and its ceramic like all real plates, not steel.
The body armor industry has a history of a lot of shady dealings and AR500 is only the latest chapter. They pay youtube gun influencers to make videos that make their products look good.
The main downside of pretty much any purchase like that is that it distracts your attention/time/money from other safety gear.
For instance, an extra fire extinguisher on the other side of the house is probably a better purchase for most people in terms of safety. But someone might spend their "safety" budget (time, money, attention) on the armor and then be left without the basics.
Also, unless you have a gun already or you are physically strong, armor doesn't seem likely to be effective.
For instance, an extra fire extinguisher on the other side of the house is probably a better purchase for most people in terms of safety. But someone might spend their "safety" budget (time, money, attention) on the armor and then be left without the basics.
Also, unless you have a gun already or you are physically strong, armor doesn't seem likely to be effective.
> Also, unless you have a gun already or you are physically strong, armor doesn't seem likely to be effective.
Exactly, body armor only helps prevent bullet penetration. Your body is still absorbing a shitload of energy. It's like being hit with a baseball bat. You have to be a large, strong person to maintain physical capabilities after being hit.
Also body armor is extremely fickle; it must be worn and fitted correctly. It is akin to a well-tailored Italian suit. If you gain a few pounds, it won't fit right. Bad fit = bad protection. Also, they don't protect the lower abdomen and groin areas -- which is a serious risk when a shooter is aiming for center mass, bullets fall as they travel.
Exactly, body armor only helps prevent bullet penetration. Your body is still absorbing a shitload of energy. It's like being hit with a baseball bat. You have to be a large, strong person to maintain physical capabilities after being hit.
Also body armor is extremely fickle; it must be worn and fitted correctly. It is akin to a well-tailored Italian suit. If you gain a few pounds, it won't fit right. Bad fit = bad protection. Also, they don't protect the lower abdomen and groin areas -- which is a serious risk when a shooter is aiming for center mass, bullets fall as they travel.
Paint a target on yourself? Maybe wear this under a big fluffy sweater.
(In the background I am just smh over how dystopian America is now.)
(In the background I am just smh over how dystopian America is now.)
I’m surprised to see this here, on HN.
For all its faults, Facebook isn’t to blame for the existence of edgy paraphernalia merchants of the kind that make Buzzfeed feel squeamish.
Journalism like this is bullying. Ironically, Buzzfeed’s intention is to rabble rouse negative sentiment against those in charge — in this case, Zuckerberg.
Profiting off of cultural and political discord indeed. Et tu, Buzzfeed?
For all its faults, Facebook isn’t to blame for the existence of edgy paraphernalia merchants of the kind that make Buzzfeed feel squeamish.
Journalism like this is bullying. Ironically, Buzzfeed’s intention is to rabble rouse negative sentiment against those in charge — in this case, Zuckerberg.
Profiting off of cultural and political discord indeed. Et tu, Buzzfeed?
Poor Zuck, getting bullied like this :( I hope he pulls through
Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and additionally add weapons of any type and in this case add military style gear - e.g. the storm trooper stuff. Add more advertising regulations like alcohol/tobacco.
FB already prohibits weapons, alcohol, tobacco ads etc..
Gun manufacturers would have to KYC like banks, probably have to add big insurance costs and ultimately charge (significantly) higher prices which should hopefully reduce the amount of weapons in the US which is already ridiculously high. The tobacco playbook I'm talking European increasing costs.
FB already prohibits weapons, alcohol, tobacco ads etc..
Gun manufacturers would have to KYC like banks, probably have to add big insurance costs and ultimately charge (significantly) higher prices which should hopefully reduce the amount of weapons in the US which is already ridiculously high. The tobacco playbook I'm talking European increasing costs.
Judges can usually see intent behind laws like that, similar things have been tried with abortion, attempting to make it harder/more expensive or similar, with not great success.
I'm not an expert here - I work in politics which overlaps a bit - it seems though that there is a very organized effort to install judges who go against this though right?
the Heritage Foundation has successfully placed hundreds on the bench who rule using plain text ultra-socially conservative legal theory. Even at the justice department some of Barr's speeches especially Notre Dame one are insanely religious and scary from my side of the fence.
And abortion seems to be the main test here too.
aren't there a few cases that could go before the supreme court soon where conservatives are hoping that Barrett's quote about re-examining past rulings and not holding precedent as the 'law' will reverse our progress?
the Heritage Foundation has successfully placed hundreds on the bench who rule using plain text ultra-socially conservative legal theory. Even at the justice department some of Barr's speeches especially Notre Dame one are insanely religious and scary from my side of the fence.
And abortion seems to be the main test here too.
aren't there a few cases that could go before the supreme court soon where conservatives are hoping that Barrett's quote about re-examining past rulings and not holding precedent as the 'law' will reverse our progress?
Suggestion algos working as per design. What's the surprise here?
That's what I'm complaining about...
Facebook is allowed to show adverts and related links next to conpiracy theory content that just dends the readers deeper into their rabit holes.
They should be mandated to advertise educational and mental health support services next to such content.
What is happening now is like advertising best shotguns, gas ovens and sleep pills next to suicide apologetics, but on societal level.
Facebook is allowed to show adverts and related links next to conpiracy theory content that just dends the readers deeper into their rabit holes.
They should be mandated to advertise educational and mental health support services next to such content.
What is happening now is like advertising best shotguns, gas ovens and sleep pills next to suicide apologetics, but on societal level.
Facebook should be shut down unless they can commit to a plan to resolve any similar type of issue. Let’s give them 24 hours.
I have been getting nothing but milsurp/"tactical tim" ads for 2020. I don't chat about plate carriers, bugout bags, etc ever, I don't engage in anything about it.. Facebook has just become like a bad gun store ad platform.
I don't even think it is limited to disinformation posts. I have a FB friend who is a hardcore progressive democrat, very politically forthright, and he is seeing the same type of ads and he is not a firearms owner or survivalist.
The part about guns and bullet proof vest being marketed as survival gear is rather comical in itself
> New Year’s specials for specialized body armor plates, rifle enhancements, and shooting targets
I follow pretty liberal content and was seeing these too.
[deleted]
Wow buzzfeed on hackernews
Quintessential Facebook.
The spice must flow....
gadders(1)
Facebook knows their audience well and is catering to it. It's social media for middle-aged conservatives, so it makes sense to advertise to them.
I don't know of a lot of young people who use the platform still, they've all gone off to TikTok or Instagram(still FB I know).
I don't know of a lot of young people who use the platform still, they've all gone off to TikTok or Instagram(still FB I know).
I think the ads I always used to see before terminating my use of Facebook for Christian Mingle say otherwise.
Middle-aged conservatives buying insurrection cosplay gear is, I would say, a problem in itself that America is really unwilling to confront. The boundary between pretend and reality gets very, very thin and the ammunition purchased is live.
(It could even fall under existing restrictions on ""gangs"", if those weren't targeted at nonwhite people only!)
(It could even fall under existing restrictions on ""gangs"", if those weren't targeted at nonwhite people only!)
If they are white then we call them mafia, unless they are white and more brute, in which case we call them a mob, which is, to be fair, a word commonly used to refer to the people at the Capitol on the 6th.
> It's social media for middle-aged conservatives
Are you sure about that? When I sign on to Facebook, it appears to be social media for middle-aged liberal minded people. Facebook is a bit of a mirror in that sense.
Are you sure about that? When I sign on to Facebook, it appears to be social media for middle-aged liberal minded people. Facebook is a bit of a mirror in that sense.
I thought Facebook was just for memes!
It has become pretty good at only showing you things you like to counter the reputation of making you hate the people you know IRL, I suspect.
It has become pretty good at only showing you things you like to counter the reputation of making you hate the people you know IRL, I suspect.
Exactly. Almost the only time I see things that I disagree strongly with is when I'm shown a comment by one of my contacts who is in a stupid fruitless argument where neither party has a chance in hell of changing the other persons mind.
>>Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to “Insurrection” Posts
Engineers high-fiving each other. They got the ad relevancy right, at least.
Engineers high-fiving each other. They got the ad relevancy right, at least.
This software is working exactly as it was designed to. I'm sure somebody could (and probably will, now that it's made the news) add a rule that makes an exception in this case. But this is going to keep happening, and keep happening, and keep happening, as long as we continue allowing systems to automate our content-feeds, optimized for getting us to spend money.