Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Advertising Politics

Facebook Advertising Boycott Targets Misinformation and Hate Speech (cnet.com) 95

Posted by EditorDavid from the hitting-where-it-hurts dept.
Two major outdoor-goods retailers "have joined a boycott of Facebook after six civil rights groups called on businesses to stop advertising on Facebook in July," reports CNET, "to push the social network to do more to combat hate speech and misinformation..." The moves by the high-profile brands [North Face and REI] suggest the ad boycott, unveiled Wednesday, is beginning to gain traction. In addition to the two retailers, digital-advertising firm 360i urged its clients in an email to stop purchasing ads on Facebook in July, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. The Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Colors of Change, Free Press and Common Sense say that boycotting advertising on Facebook will put pressure on the platform to use its $70 billion in annual advertising revenue to support people who are targets of racism and hate and to increase safety for private groups on the site.

"We have long seen how Facebook has allowed some of the worst elements of society into our homes and our lives. When this hate spreads online it causes tremendous harm and also becomes permissible offline," Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a press release announcing the campaign. "Our organizations have tried individually and collectively to push Facebook to make their platforms safer, but they have repeatedly failed to take meaningful action. We hope this campaign finally shows Facebook how much their users and their advertisers want them to make serious changes for the better."

In a press call Wednesday, Facebook Vice President of Global Affairs and Communications Nick Clegg said the company doesn't allow hate speech on its platform. Facebook removed nearly 10 million posts for violating its rules against hate speech in the last quarter, he said, and most were taken down before users reported them. The social network relies on a mix of human reviewers and technology to moderate content, but detecting hate speech can be challenging because machines have to understand the cultural context of words.

"Of course, we would like to do even better than that," Clegg said. "We need to do more. We need to move faster, but we are making significant progress."
Among the groups' demands: removing all ads that contain hate speech -- or misinformation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Advertising Boycott Targets Misinformation and Hate Speech More

Facebook Advertising Boycott Targets Misinformation and Hate Speech

Comments Filter:

  • Just remove everything (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21, 2020 @10:42AM (#60208714)

    Remove ads that contain misinformation? Might as well just remove them all then.

    When's the last time you were served a burger that looked like the one in the ad?
    Had a cologne that gave you the life of a millionaire playboy?
    Saw a hair growth product that even remotely worked?

    Advertising and marketing is all about selling a fantasy.

  • because I only see posts on Facebook by people I friend, groups I follow, and advertising customized to my expressed interests on Facebook. As Facebook has given me a lot of control over all three of those, who exactly are these people protecting me from? Sources I want to hear from but they don't want me to hear from?

    • because I only see posts on Facebook by people I friend, groups I follow, and advertising customized to my expressed interests on Facebook

      Bullshit. "Your" "customized"/"expressed" interests are irrelevant. I spent a considerable period of time removing all of my "interests" from my advertising settings and guess what? Faceboot put all that shit back. According to them I'm interested in baby supplies (don't have kids, don't want kids) and in fashion (fashion is for fuckfaces) and all manner of other bullshit in which I have less than no interest. It got to the point where I actually paid [a dollar] for an Android app that lets me use Facebook

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Acron ( 1253166 )

        So it only cost you a dollar to fix the problem with a service you no longer even have to pay the actual cost to use (watching ads)? What exactly is your complaint? So even when FB fails, you can easily and cheaply fix the problem? : )

        Which takes us right back to the core problem, someone else is trying to control what you and I can and cannot see on FB. From your comments, we both concur, the only person doing that should be us.

        I agree, definitely don't install the Facebook app.

        • What exactly is your complaint? So even when FB fails, you can easily and cheaply fix the problem? : )

          It would have been disingenuous to not include the fact that the amount I paid was very small. It's still an irritant, especially since there are several things that don't work very well in Friendly. I was using another app before, but they didn't offer an ad blocker, and I consider Facebook to be essentially unusable without one. Let them be happy with the information they get about me that they can sell.

      • "fashion is for fuckfaces" Thanks for the title to my punk band's next tune.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        Who the fuck looks at ads anymore?

  • A pro-censorship boycott by progressives. WTF?

    • On second thought maybe this isn't such a bad thing. The world would be a much better place if all social media sites went under and people had to go back to discussing things face to face.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That would suck. It's much better now that I can get together with people from all over the country, all over the world to discuss things like electric cars, DIY, retro computers and anything else I take an interest in. I even joy #caturday on Twitter sometimes.

        Get rid of Facebook but there is some value in other forms of social media.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        That would be great, with the exception of the fact that my friends reside in about 30 states and several more countries. Oh, and COVID.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
      The "progressives" are fascists at heart. There is now thought-crime, ex post facto "laws" about behaviors, and a classification of anyone who disagrees with them as sub-human. Remember, you ain't black if you don't vote for their chosen person (making race subject to behavior).

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      It's the same reason that Fox gets boycotted by advertisers: they're responsible for spreading garbage and hurting a lot of people. Censorship has nothing to do with it.

  • no (Score:3)

    by codeButcher ( 223668 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @11:02AM (#60208782)
    I think all hatespeech, as well as recordings of people acting it out, should not only be allowed but also highlighted. With restrictions on who can view it disabled. So that the whole world can see who does the speeching and what they say, instead of seeing some secondhand cherrypicked, twisted version in some media.

  • This picture [imgur.com] is what the con artist's one minion posted yesterday to show the massive crowd in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As a reminder, the date was June 20th and this is how the people were supposedly dressed.

    Also, it's funny how most of the trees don't have any leaves despite it being June 20th. What's more surprising is there are trees in downtown Tulsa outside the place where these supporters supposedly stood.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Also, it's funny how most of the trees don't have any leaves despite it being June 20th. What's more surprising is there are trees in downtown Tulsa outside the place where these supporters supposedly stood.

      I'm fascinated by the number of people wearing fleeces and hunting jackets when it was in the low 80s [timeanddate.com] according to records that actually include a time and date.

      I'm even more fascinated by the fact that this exact picture popped up as meme #16 in something posted two months ago [dailydot.com] by a time-travelling Never

    • Do you have direct evidence he posted this picture? I just looked on Trump Jr.'s Twitter feed and I can't find it. It is possible it was deleted but it doesn't look likely. Ironically, what may be happening here is that in your rush to accuse them of promoting fake things, you've fallen for fake. This doesn't change the fact that Trump and his associates have repeatedly and blatantly lied, but one should try to be better than they are.

      • "it doesn't look likely" Why? Trump and his posse have a long history of taking down embarrassing tweets when they get called on them.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        Do you have direct evidence he posted this picture? I just looked on Trump Jr.'s Twitter feed and I can't find it. It is possible it was deleted but it doesn't look likely.

        Because if you'd bothered to look at the image you'd see that it was posted to his Facebook account [facebook.com], right here [facebook.com].

        Ironically, what may be happening here is that in your rush to accuse them of promoting fake things, you've fallen for fake. This doesn't change the fact that Trump and his associates have repeatedly and blatantly lied, but one

        • You are correct. I'm not sure why I thought it was a Twitter post. Thank you for pointing that out.
    • Where is the source? Or is this a case of believing truth over facts?

      • It's posted (or at least was posted) on the idiot's FB page. Multiple people have reported this image as misinformation so it's possible FB took it down. It was fourth in a series of pictures.

        • So - no link, or a screen cap of the entire page? Just the singular image? Yeah. that can never be faked...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            So - no link, or a screen cap of the entire page? Just the singular image? Yeah. that can never be faked...

            Why screencap when it's available right on his Facebook page [facebook.com], still.

            Now tell us how his page was hacked 16 hours ago [facebook.com].

            • On that FB page - does he claim those are at the Tulsa rally? No? So you're making shit up once again?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                On that FB page - does he claim those are at the Tulsa rally? No? So you're making shit up once again?

                Why, yes he does. When one writes "The Silent Majority is about to GET LOUD ðYsðYðY," one does not refer to something that happened in 2016 in the future tense.

                You're really pulling out all the stops on the excuses, aren't you?

                • Ahh - so it's specific to an event, and not to the restart of the campaign? So good for you to know what everyone else means. Presumption is so lawyerly, isn't it?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                    Ahh - so it's specific to an event, and not to the restart of the campaign? So good for you to know what everyone else means.

                    Posting old pictures of lines of people to your Facebook page 2 hours before a rally starts is how you show "the restart of the campaign?"

                    You must think the rest of us are idiots.

    • Your post is misinformation since you provide no evidence of who posted and when. Just your claim.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        Your post is misinformation since you provide no evidence of who posted and when. Just your claim.

        Zero evidence [facebook.com] of his own Facebook post? You obviously missed the URL at the top of the picture.

        Here's a direct link [facebook.com] in case you can't be bothered to scroll down the posts made in the last 24 hours and miss it.

        • No where in that post does a Trump claim that photo is from Tulsa.

          In fact, it looks like the post is deliberately a collage of various rally photos (Montana, South Carolina, D.C.), only one of which is from Tulsa. The post itself just mentions the silent majority.

          This is what TDS looks like. Reading into a post all sorts of things which aren't there, and then loudly objecting to your own imaginations.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

            This is what TDS looks like. Reading into a post all sorts of things which aren't there, and then loudly objecting to your own imaginations.

            Things that aren't there like "The Silent Majority is about to GET LOUD"?

            What "is about to GET LOUD" when this is posted on 6/20/2020 at about 5pm? I wouldn't want to be accused of using my imagination, after all.

            • The Trump supporters all around the country would seem to be the obvious answer. Ever heard of a metaphor before?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                Ever heard of lying to cover up that your arena is only 1/3rd full before?

                I have, Saturday no less.

  • Haven't seen any in the last several years of every few days checking on the family posts. Maybe blocking Facebook like buttons, not using Facebook to login anywhere but Facebook and never posting on Facebook has some advantages. Added the Facebook Container extension to Firefox may even further reduce their ability to track me.

    Why would you advertise on Facebook? I also think advertising anywhere is pretty pointless. If I need something I'll go looking for it, and I won't click an ad to get it.

  • might help (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @11:58AM (#60208900)
    I've said this before. Facebook sells ads. That's their business. That's why they exist. The social networking platform is nothing more than a honeypot to collect user data and a delivery mechanism for the ads. Zuckerberg is an ad man.Losing ad revenue is something that they actually might pay attention to.

    Facebook is actually really simple to understand. Here's the list of things that Facebook might actually pay attention to and change their behavior:

    1. Laws and regulations that place legal controls on them
    2. Anything that might lose them substantial amounts of ad revenue

    Here's a list of things that they won't pay any attention to at all: Everything else. Politicians, pressure groups, bad press, hate groups, foreign spy agencies, whatever. Literally everything else falls in this category.

  • No platforming on an industrial scale.

    Ah well, truth is lies, peace is war, freedom is slavery etc.

    Orwell strikes again.

  • Demands (Score:2)

    by kenh ( 9056 )

    Among the groups' demands: removing all ads that contain hate speech -- or misinformation.

    They refuse to advertise on Facebook until everything on Facebook is true (no misinformation)? If they want to impact Facebook a couple fewer advertisers won't have an impact - a personal boy it of Facebook by the groups members would be more impactful. Advertising on Facebook is not like advertising for magazines, newspapers or TV, when they lose advertisers the product is visibly impacted, fewer Facebook advertisers will go unnoticed - fewer eyeballs means lower ad revenue, esp if a group can muster a mea

  • “[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race...[if] the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” (Mill, "On Liberty").

  • But being FB they'll only target 'hate' or misinformation that they disagree with, while any politically aligned examples of the same will remain free to circulate. Which is why I left FB last month and will never return. That's the true problem with censorship of any form...you simply can't remove bias from the process. That's why either everything must be allowed, or nothing. Anything in between is nothing but a corrupted opinion.

  • Tyranny of the majority (Score:4, Informative)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @01:49PM (#60209202)
    Any philosophy for controlling speech must function both when a good idea is popular with the majority, or championed only by a minority. Imagine if boycotting businesses who allowed speech the majority disagreed with were a thing in the 1910s, or the 1950s. The womens' suffrage movement and the civil rights movements would've died on the vine, as any business supporting or agnostic them would've been forced by pressure from the majority to deny them a voice. Boycotting businesses which "allow bad speech" only works when a good idea is already popular. It will actually kill off the good ideas along with the bad when the good ideas are first germinating and believed by only a minority.

    It is not your duty or your right to prevent others from hearing what you consider to be a bad idea. It is the right and duty of every individual to hear the idea and decide for themselves that it's bad. That's the only philosophy of speech which allows good ideas to germinate and spread. Yes it also allows bad ideas to germinate and spread. But if you trust the judgment of The People, the bad ideas will never spread to the point where they're believed by the majority, while the good ideas will. And over time, the general trend will be towards more good ideas and fewer bad ideas. Boycotting based on popularity results in a tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org] - society becomes more resistant to change, any change, good or bad. That may be good for the good ideas which are already believed by the majority right now. But it's a death sentence for every future good idea.

    • Re:Tyranny of the majority (Score:4, Insightful)

      by azcoyote ( 1101073 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @03:18PM (#60209522)

      Good points. However, the value of speech has to stand regardless of whether "The People" is trustworthy. The fact is that bad ideas do spread even to the point of majority—think Nazism. Now in some cases it may simply be that a bad idea obtains majority political power even if not representative of the numerical majority of persons, but that does not really matter. Truth has no relevance to mere numbers; at no point does something become true or false simply based on a count of how many people believe it. At the same time there are several factors that lead toward the promotion of falsehood over truth. It's much easier to sell a convenient lie than an inconvenient truth (no Al Gore reference intended here). From a Christian perspective, also, humans are drawn toward evil and falsehood because of a basic corruption of desire due to the first sin.

      Accordingly, on what basis can we assume that good ideas will eventually prevail over bad ideas? Nothing but sheer optimism. Even if we believe that we have made some kind of "progress" in society thus far, on what basis can we insist that such is a purely-natural development or that is represents some general trend of society or truth as a whole? Since this is Slashdot, it probably helps to think of this in terms of evolution. In the purest sense, natural selection makes no guarantee that over time things will be "good." Rather, it makes it so that the general trend is toward creatures being "better adapted." This distinction makes all the difference. If truth works in the same way, for example, then the overall trend will be for society to cling to ideas that are better adapted for times, cultures, and peoples. This is imaginable. But that does not mean that the ideas we cling to or develop will be inherently good or true or right. I bet a historian could argue, for example, that medieval feudalism developed because to some extent it is what western civilization needed at the time to deal with the power vacuums of the failing Roman empire, but that does not mean that feudalism is inherently good or better than the republic that had vanished long before.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Women's suffrage and the civil rights movement were widely boycotted by businesses. Many people involved lost their jobs and were de-platformed. Much of the media turned on them. Much of the public was against them too, particularly other women being against suffrage. They were afraid it might mean they had to work or couldn't find a good husband.

  • Badaboom BB is planned by Blambot and it is a decent Comic font that is accessible for free download for your own use. what’s more, Badaboom Font free form contacts the uppercase and lowercase letter with some special character. http://badaboom-bb.mystrikingl... [mystrikingly.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close