https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/facebook-fails-tackle-election-disinformation-ads-ahead-tense-brazilian-election/ They don't do it because they don't want to? They just don't put the appropriate means on the topic? But then why as it more likely to hurt Meta on the long run than anything else? (political ads is a tiny fraction of their revenue but an explosive topic) Am I missing something and it is actually more complicated than it seems to do it at Meta's scale without considerable operating cost?
The problem is 2-part. Letting humans review/reject will create new HR issues in how you have to intentionally discriminate and select which humans. It also reduces confidence in other unrelated areas, creates rumors and further manipulation.... " if they have _____ over there rejecting ads how do we know that they didn't have a similar person 'judging' this project here, or this decision there that I didn't agree with and think is wrong" The other part is total fairness if you let a machine make decisions ( machine learning, rules engine) . But the problem with that and AI is nowadays people expect 'explainability' and a human has to write the first rule to tell the machine what to do. All the interjection of humans in 'machine matters' discredits and destroys confidence in the ad being reviewed fairly according to YOUR political view. And there are many 'YOUR's
Because there's no such thing as "disinformation", and anyone who thinks there is, is the dumbest person in the room.
Even targeting groups of people likely to vote for your opponent with ads claiming that the election date is a week later than it is to suppress votes for the other side? Certain things are true or false and not a matter of opinion.
When the police and government is promoting the misinformation what will meta do? Its outside their scope, taking down such post means getting banned in the country like its already has been in China and Russia. Do you expect meta to also send the firebrigade when there's a post on fire? These things are the responsibility of the election department and judiciary.
It's a paid feature to have un manipulated news. Most people don't want to pay for it
If it hurts Meta's profit on the long run (because bad press impacting public opinion which in turn impacts DAU, and also because more stringent regulations could appear if the problem becomes politically too big to ignore), Meta has a direct interest in addressing the topic seriously, haven't they?
It's a feature not a bug. If someone puts out an ad that is clearly lying it is responsible of meta to show it in order to show that the person is dishonest. Same thing if someone lies on stage at a speech. You can't just start limiting people from doing legal actions.. sorry can't protect you from words that might hurt a bit but don't break any law
Good point. But then Meta could ensure that all political ads are labelled as such so that one can access everything that has been said and who said it. Are they important points for making advertisers responsible of what they put out?
They do a lot of this just not everywhere at the moment from what I understand
Meta has a terrible hit rate at deciding what is or isn’t disinformation. It’s influenced by a range of things including the c-suite’s personal political opinions, the interests and opinions of the supposedly neutral fact checkers (and the people that fund them), and simple human fallibility. Even when you see results you dont like, it’s probably better for everybody if we take a lighter touch.
When the police and government is promoting the misinformation what will meta do? Its outside their scope, taking down such post means getting banned in the country like its already has been in China and Russia. Do you expect meta to also send the firebrigade when there's a post on fire? These things are the responsibility of the election department and judiciary.
How come the regular press doesn't do anything against manipulative articles? What has been written about Meta in the past years is often pulled out of context, blown out of proportion, etc. Meta has its challenges like you show, but these are not intentional and the result of fully automatic systems. Tesla can't get FDS right, Amazon has tons of harmful products in their store, Google ads are being used by scammers etc. Just showing how any automized system has flaws.
I don't think Meta cares to be honest. Zuck will apologize publicly once a while every few years to calm the storms.
Meta cares about its bottom line (as it should) so if it can significantly hurt the business, I am sure they feel concerned. Maybe it cannot...
Tech Industry
Yesterday
3677
What happens when most of your team is Indian?
World Conflicts
6h
261
Israeli precision-guided munition likely killed group of children playing foosball in Gaza, weapons experts say
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1103
Last good year to visit europe
Health & Wellness
3d
45784
High performers, how often do you have slack off days?
AMA
Yesterday
1052
PM Manager, early 40s, married and ENM (Ethical Non Monogamous) AMA
I still do not know how to pronounce your company's name
So-ciay-tay Jay-nay-ral
I would be concerned with the name before worrying about Meta’s issues