Adverts are not news

More bumph from the media crapping on about Facebook.

My point is that while Australian news media often takes a political stance in favour of one party and against others, that stance still steadfastly avoids misrepresenting facts.

But then there is Facebook. I appreciate that it’s been only 15 years since the social media site was created. That’s the blink of an eye compared to the two centuries that news media has had in this country to formulate their policies and approaches. Nonetheless, the last two weeks have seen the social media company at its influential and irresponsible worst.

Facebook produces news like the media does?  That inference is itself, fake news.

So what is the problem?

The trouble started 10 days ago with a heated exchange on Capitol Hill between Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mark Zuckerberg. The politician asked Facebook’s founder about the company’s policy of not fact- checking political advertising. Would Facebook allow political ads falsely claiming a Republican candidate had supported the Green New Deal environmental policy even when that was manifestly untrue?

“I think probably,” was Zuckerberg’s uncertain response.

Two things – anything Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  suggests can be dismissed as a Trojan horse.  More importantly though do we really want yet another intermediary telling us what we can and cannot see, think, say, or do?

I think the answer, clearly, is “No”.

Now it is true that politicians lie.  Who knew? It also seems to me that the appropriate group to determine whether politicians have lied or not is the electorate. Now I’m happy to concede that organisation can, if they choose, decide whether or not to run advertisements or types of advertisements – but be clear, that is itself a political decision. When doing so, that organisation has picked a side.

Facebook deciding whether or not to censor political advertising is a business decision. Censorship is expensive and Facebook would soon be up its eyeballs responding to complaints and  being asked to conduct fact checks and the like.

This entry was posted in Media, Platform Economy. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Adverts are not news

  1. stackja

    Facebook has advertising?
    I read posts by friends.
    I gather elsewhere on the screen there maybe advertising I ignore it.

  2. Tim Neilson

    My point is that while Australian news media often takes a political stance in favour of one party and against others, that stance still steadfastly avoids misrepresenting facts.

    The article is behind a paywall.
    What self-fellator spouted this bullshit?

    Censorship is expensive and Facebook would soon be up its eyeballs responding to complaints and being asked to conduct fact checks and the like.

    The more that Facebook censors content the more likely it is that their “common carrier” immunity for e.g. defamation will be seriously challenged. They’re happy to suppress private conservatives/libertarians, but taking on a major political party would be dangerous.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    My point is that while Australian news media often takes a political stance in favour of one party and against others, that stance still steadfastly avoids misrepresenting facts.

    LOL. If the ABC started running advertisements its nett news content would go up, and we’d not have to pay as much for their propaganda. Win win! At least Facebook doesn’t cost me anything.

  4. Iampeter

    Facebook produces news like the media does? That inference is itself, fake news.

    Most leftists, including most of today’s conservatives, are trying to conflate the two in order to justify regulating tech companies like Facebook because they disagree with their politics. In other words, in order to censor them, while claiming to fight for free speech.

    But yea, Zuckerberg telling Cortez that it’s not his job to lie to her voters for her was probably the only good part of that terrible hearing. And the conservatives were particularly odious. It’s hard to tell who is more left wing these days.

  5. max

    the biggest dissemination of ideas comes from public schools not Facebook or Google.

    Start campaign to abolish compulsory public education.

  6. Roger

    Censorship is expensive and Facebook would soon be up its eyeballs responding to complaints and being asked to conduct fact checks and the like.

    No doubt, but they manage to do that successfully for China, India & Turkey.

    The reason they’d rather not in the US is not technical, nor is it out of a love of free speech – obviously – it is purely commercial: they make a great deal of money from those ads.

    Just an observation.

  7. Yohan

    There has now been a concerted push to remove political advertising because this is the last outlet for the Trump admin to use in the incoming election. Google and social media companies have already banned almost every effective conservative internet activist. The remainder that are not outright banned are under shadow bans and their content is restricted from trending or being seen.

    So the last was remaining way for Trumps campaign to get their messaging out is via paid advertising, so of course the left now want to shut this down. This is all about the 2020 election, nothing else.

  8. Yohan

    If all internet political advertising is shut down, the left massively benefits, because they already control all the newspapers, all the free to air TV, all the cable TV (apart from Fox, and they are pro Trump only 50% of the time).

    That’s what this is all about, censoring to their electoral advantage. Also, the left truly believes that conservative and right wing opinion is illegitimate and should be banned, so they have a twisted moral justification behind pushing for this.

  9. struth

    Most leftists, including most of today’s conservatives, are trying to conflate the two in order to justify regulating tech companies like Facebook because they disagree with their politics. In other words, in order to censor them, while claiming to fight for free speech.

    So thick.
    They either let all said on their site or they are a publisher.
    The laws already exist.

    If they ban some speech, any speech, they are a publisher, not a carrier, and therefore liable for all said on their published site.
    But you think rights and responsibilities are separate issues.
    I have no problem with them editing/ banning, regulating, but then that leaves them open for legal action as to what is left published.
    As it should.
    They want to take control of what is said on their site, fair enough, but then they own what is said on the site.

  10. Iampeter

    They either let all said on their site or they are a publisher.
    The laws already exist.

    You are just mindlessly repeating the talking point of today’s politically illiterate leftists in the conservative movement.

  11. Beachcomber

    My point is that while Australian news media often takes a political stance in favour of one party and against others, that stance still steadfastly avoids misrepresenting facts.

    That has to be one of best LOL quotes of the year! Who wrote that? I mean which member of the leftist media circle jerk thinks that readers are stupid enough to believe that?

  12. Beachcomber

    max at 12:29 pm

    the biggest dissemination of ideas comes from public schools not Facebook or Google.

    Start campaign to abolish compulsory public education.

    Yes! The move from community-based education to compulsory government indoctrination has been a disaster for the West.

    The Universities should also be de-funded.

  13. pbw

    How is it “censorship” to insist that fb cease censoring their users?

  14. Ivan Denisovich

    Interesting:

    https://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/news-corp-developing-news-service-to-combat-facebook-google-bias/

    Taking the rationale for creating Fox and applying it to internet/social media?

  15. struth

    You are just mindlessly repeating the talking point of today’s politically illiterate leftists in the conservative movement.

    Cool, I reckon I first said that about 2 years ago.
    It may be taking it’s time but at least it’s getting out there.
    You would not notice but if you scroll up and read your shit, you have said nothing………………………again.
    Just dumb wrongology and abuse.

  16. Adelagado

    So AOC expects Facebook to do the impossible and judge whether a political advert is ‘true’ or ‘untrue’. What a stupid grandstanding windbag she is.

  17. Iampeter

    You would not notice but if you scroll up and read your shit, you have said nothing………………………again.
    Just dumb wrongology and abuse.

    This is a description of your posts, not mine.

  18. notafan

    Yes Roger

    Social media companies denying themselves major revenue streams because good!

    All things being equal, and assuming both sides of the divide spend the same amount of money advertising their policies the public will be better informed and will vote according to whether or not they like those policies.

    Clearly why AOC wants to suppress local advertising on social media.

  19. classical_hero

    The left want to think for you. That’s why they are so much for censorship. A thinking population is dangerous to the left. That’s why they came up with the term “fake news”. It was a blatant attempt to say that people can’t determine the difference between truth and a lie.

  20. Squirrel

    The recent Twitter move looks like an attempt at holier-than-thou product differentiation.

    As for “that stance still steadfastly avoids misrepresenting facts” – ROTFLMAO – with a few added Fs.

  21. Crossie

    Facebook deciding whether or not to censor political advertising is a business decision. Censorship is expensive and Facebook would soon be up its eyeballs responding to complaints and being asked to conduct fact checks and the like.

    A win-win for the Left, more of them get hired to censor those they don’t like.

  22. Mother Lode

    Todays spot quiz!

    Which of the following examples of evisceratingly insightful repartee was not delivered by OmPoida?

    You are just mindlessly repeating the talking point of today’s politically illiterate leftists in the conservative movement.

    This is a description of your posts, not mine.

    You’re a pooh-pooh head.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.