Zuckerberg promises future change as Facebook advertiser boycott grows

The 2016 policy seems finally to have cracked to the point of breaking.

Read the whole story

 

[danielc56]

As a career staff member of UCLA, I brought this to the attention to my department's Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (ED&I) office after seeing sponsored advertisements by UCLA Health.

I brought this up in keeping with our recent public statements to not remain neutral as an institution in matters of racism, harassment and misinformation.

So if you see anything coming from UCLA, or the wider UC system on this matter, I'll have done my small part (probably in conjunction with other members of the UC/UCLA community).

--danielc56

 

[Random_stranger]

The biggest threat to facebook isnt that large companies drop it; it is that those companies drop the platform and see no loss in their own sales.

I mean, facebook is an advertising platform. But how good is it?it doesnt publish good enough metrics for one to verify. The only argument its got going for it is "at least we can measure something ", but if coca cola sales dont drop when it stops adds on facebook... zuckberg will be screwed

Me: trying to cut out some calories and drop a few pounds
Also me: this makes me want to buy lots of coke

 

[Deleted member 4603]

Dude, Coke is like the BEST weight loss- oh, Coca-COLA. Nevermind.

 

[Thud2]

Labeling. Impotent, pointless exercise. Let me ask you. Take music for example. If you like Country, Rap, Metal, whatever you're into. If they decided to label your preferred type of music as "Bad' Or "Dangerous to kids" or whatever. Is that going to stop fans of that kind of music from continuing on and listening to it. No. It will have absolutely no effect. And they get to keep all their readers happy and continue business as usual.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Labeling. Impotent, pointless exercise. Let me ask you. Take music for example. If you like Country, Rap, Metal, whatever you're into. If they decided to label your preferred type of music as "Bad' Or "Dangerous to kids" or whatever.

...they've been puting warning labels on records since the 1980s, Mr. 2.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

According to NPR, Ford has also joined the boycot. They also, if I'm not mistaken, sided with California against trump over his "let's lower gas mileage in cars" idiocy. *Sighs* Ok, maybe not so bad of a company after all, but I will NEVER say that the 80's model Mustang was anything more than a methed up go-cart.

I mean, WTF? I loved He-Man as a kid, as well that 4NonBlondes song as a teen, but along comes YouTube and left *that* little scar across my psyche. That scrawny Fresh Prince goofball with the stupid haircut I laughed at? Really? *Unmanfully wipes abit of drool away* That Cosby Show my whole family watched because "America's Dad"? Ooooowwwww

Japan accidentally nukes *themselves* and spends almost a decade pouring radioactive crap into one of the strongest ocean currents on this planet, but do we have Godzilla? Noooooo, of course not!

I loved Marvel Comics, and hated on DC, but... Ok, that one I got right... So far... Unless their next End boss turns out to be HR Puffinstuff or some shit like that... Oh, right, probably won't going to a movie theater for awhile...

TL;DR:
Dear Reality: You're an asshole, and I hope you get crabs from a hooker.

LOL... I felt like I was reading an excerpt from a contemporary version of William Faulkner. Talk about stream of consciousness!

"All who wander are not lost." - Tolkien

But some sure appear to be.

I blame Alberquerery... Albakirkwee... Alba...
Mmmm, Jessica Alba *drools abit*

If my silliness brings laughter to even a single person,
especially in times as trying and troubling as this,
then maybe the path I wander isn't so lost.

[stares intently at Mindstatic]

[nods at gray]

I like this one.

Someone get him a VIP membership to TPL stat.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

I doubt that this will be a popular view but fwiw I don't think that FB/Twitter/social media in general IS the problem, rather it's that FB etc. reveal the problem, which is that a significant proportion of people think that things like racism, homophobia, incitement to violence etc. is right and acceptable.

Restricting, or even shutting down, FB et al won't fix this underlying problem: it'll just hide it from our sight; but it'll still be there because those people will still hold their repugnant Us Vs. Them beliefs and views.

We won't be able to fix this problem until we understand it, and even then, fixing it isn't going to be easy, or even certain; no one is entirely rational.

Perhaps another 20,000 years of evolution might do it though.

I can't tell someone "what to believe."

I can tell someone to shut the fuck up with their racist bullshit, to the point they are again ASHAMED AND AFRAID OF DOING SO PUBLICLY, as they had been for a good 30 years or so.

Works well enough for me.

Do you really, honestly believe that being abusive to someone who holds a view that's opposed to your own will make them ashamed of their point of view? Well, perhaps, if they held that view solely through ignorance, and your abuse enlightened them, but does that apply to all racists? I strongly doubt that.

I find it difficult to believe that people choose to be racist; where's the benefit from doing so?

But what bothers me most about your reply is that you're happy with just hiding the problem: you're Ok with the racist persecution by the police that's been going on all through that 30 years (and far longer, of course), as long as it wasn't in your face?

You clearly haven't the slightest fucking idea to whom you are speaking.

Bye.

 

[AlanC137]

I don't see where anyone would find Facebook to be a credible source of information concerning anything. Their entire philosophy has been to avoid acting responsibly in any way when it comes to the content they promulgate.
They simply don't care about the kind of damage they are doing. They may care about the loss of some revenue and will make some cosmetic changes to appease advertisers, but the bottom line is that they still won't be guided by principled judgement.

 

[polkiu]

Labeling. Impotent, pointless exercise. Let me ask you. Take music for example. If you like Country, Rap, Metal, whatever you're into. If they decided to label your preferred type of music as "Bad' Or "Dangerous to kids" or whatever.

...they've been puting warning labels on records since the 1980s, Mr. 2.

I think he's saying there are moves possible beyond labeling. For example platforms like ITunes, Amazon, Spotify, could be pressured to pull artists who have risky (violence, sex, crime) content or themes in their music. We know these big corporations are susceptible to bending to public outcry, or perceived public outcry. All it will take is a single event and a wave of news articles spawned from it criticizing the "dangerous" lyrics of some band. Then all bands will start having their lyrics focused on. It'll be the whole blackface thing, with the media trawling through band's lyrics from 20 years ago finding bad things.

The media will have a field day having a series of stories to write. The activists will have a field day being important and stoking moral panic. The corporations buckle in fear for their reputations and start writing up tight content guidelines for music.

And their stranglehold on the music publishing industry will ensure bands who want to prosper will have to be very careful what they put in lyrics.

Yeah I can totally see this happening, it's a great insight by the poster. Might seem impossible now, but comedians in the 80s didn't see the censorship of today coming. either

 

[DarthSlack]

I don't see where anyone would find Facebook to be a credible source of information concerning anything. Their entire philosophy has been to avoid acting responsibly in any way when it comes to the content they promulgate.
They simply don't care about the kind of damage they are doing. They may care about the loss of some revenue and will make some cosmetic changes to appease advertisers, but the bottom line is that they still won't be guided by principled judgement.

If the rise of Trumpism has proven anything it's that about a third of the US adult population will believe absolutely anything, no matter how obviously insane, so long as it's wrapped in the appropriate Trumpian packaging.

And actually, Facebook does care about the loss of revenue from these people, that's why they've been catering to the extreme right for so long. They don't want to lose that revenue stream and will fight like hell to keep it. Facebook's principle is clear, if they can profit from hate, they're happy to do so.

 

[Peevester]

I don't see where anyone would find Facebook to be a credible source of information concerning anything. Their entire philosophy has been to avoid acting responsibly in any way when it comes to the content they promulgate.
They simply don't care about the kind of damage they are doing. They may care about the loss of some revenue and will make some cosmetic changes to appease advertisers, but the bottom line is that they still won't be guided by principled judgement.

If the rise of Trumpism has proven anything it's that about a third of the US adult population will believe absolutely anything, no matter how obviously insane, so long as it's wrapped in the appropriate Trumpian packaging.

And actually, Facebook does care about the loss of revenue from these people, that's why they've been catering to the extreme right for so long. They don't want to lose that revenue stream and will fight like hell to keep it. Facebook's principle is clear, if they can profit from hate, they're happy to do so.

If they can profit from ANYTHING, they're happy to do so. So far we haven't found a bottom on what shit they're willing to pull, from hate to subverting democracy.

 

[DarthSlack]

I don't see where anyone would find Facebook to be a credible source of information concerning anything. Their entire philosophy has been to avoid acting responsibly in any way when it comes to the content they promulgate.
They simply don't care about the kind of damage they are doing. They may care about the loss of some revenue and will make some cosmetic changes to appease advertisers, but the bottom line is that they still won't be guided by principled judgement.

If the rise of Trumpism has proven anything it's that about a third of the US adult population will believe absolutely anything, no matter how obviously insane, so long as it's wrapped in the appropriate Trumpian packaging.

And actually, Facebook does care about the loss of revenue from these people, that's why they've been catering to the extreme right for so long. They don't want to lose that revenue stream and will fight like hell to keep it. Facebook's principle is clear, if they can profit from hate, they're happy to do so.

If they can profit from ANYTHING, they're happy to do so. So far we haven't found a bottom on what shit they're willing to pull, from hate to subverting democracy.

To be honest though, it's not just Facebook. There's several extreme right media empires that profit handsomely from selling bullshit to rubes. Fox News. Sinclair. Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. OAN. This list goes on and on of people and companies that get filthy stinking rich by making sure that fascism is front and center and on sale. And unfortunately, hate sells better than sex.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

but comedians in the 80s didn't see the censorship of today coming. either

Are you daft?

There is LESS CENSORSHIP of Comedy now, than in the 80's. Yeah, your Andrew Dice Clays got told to take their tired, sexist bullshit and fuck off, but plenty of foul-mouthed and boundary-pushing folk are seen nightly on stage and screen across the country.

It's just harder to get away with *actually* being an asshole, than it used to be, due to social media, prevalence of cameras and such.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Labeling. Impotent, pointless exercise. Let me ask you. Take music for example. If you like Country, Rap, Metal, whatever you're into. If they decided to label your preferred type of music as "Bad' Or "Dangerous to kids" or whatever.

...they've been puting warning labels on records since the 1980s, Mr. 2.

I think he's saying there are moves possible beyond labeling.

Then he's not doing a very good job of saying it, since there's nothing in his post that remotely resembles that statement.

 

[Zlotnick]

Dude, Coke is like the BEST weight loss- oh, Coca-COLA. Nevermind.

You’re thinking of heroin.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

I'd be interested to know what the breakdown, among the companies involved, is between belief that facebook advertising is valuable; but not valuable enough to take flak over; and suspicion that it's overhyped and underdelivering.

There has certainly been a decent amount of (warranted) skepticism about facebook's metrics in the past (most famously pretty much the who 'pivot to video' fiasco); and this situation seems like a perfect chance for anyone who was on the fence about their facebook ad spend to sell at least an experiment in the effects of just stopping.

Not ideal scientific conditions, lots of confounding factors; but if you want to sell the decision makers(especially the ones in advertising/marketing whose jobs and worldview are necessarily predicated on the idea that advertising is effective and worth doing) on just not advertising on one of the world's larger online properties, you have to work with the circumstances you have because your experiment won't get the green light under normal ones.

There are probably some where the ability to act semi-collectively in response to a 'movement' is helpful. I've ready that both Coke and Pepsi, for instance, are currently onboard. Give that advertising is pretty much the only thing that distinguishes their respective brands of sugar water from one another I suspect that unilaterally halting advertising would be rather scary; but, like any arms race, constantly attempting to outdo the other frequently leads to the same stalemate with a lot more money spent; so they are probably both better off it they both just don't touch facebook; rather than both tithing to facebook just to keep even.

If this is a factor, it probably scares facebook even more. Even if they don't care enough to change policy, they could just hold out for the world to change around them; or for advertisers to come crawling back in desperation; but if stopping your facebook ad spend just...doesn't do anything...why start it back up?

I'm starting to see branded face masks show up. Gotta embrace the new paradigm. It's not like the pandemic is going away any time soon.

I suspect facemasks will be with us more or less permanently, as they are in some Asian countries, regardless of the covid-19 outcome. A demonstration that they're actually useful in preventing the spread of disease will encourage their use for other diseases.

I can't tell you how many dozens of times per year there's someone in the office sneezing, coughing, and horking up god knows what without so much as turning aside, let alone covering their mouth, spraying infectious effluvium all over their coworkers.

The Friday before my whole office got sent home I was having a conversation with a couple of other project managers. One of them had the gall (and I guess I appreciate his honesty) to say he has never taken a sick day in his 14 year career. "Oh, I just come in when I am sick. I've been here working through a 103F fever and the flu a couple of times, but man I am going to have a TON of sick leave to credit my pension when I retire".

WHAT.

THE.

FUCK.

I told him how inconsiderate he was of everyone around him by risking getting them sick and walked away.

He also doesn't get vaccinated for the flu because he doesn't like getting shots.

He is what America is up against.

My employer says they;re able to use the security cameras to track everyone who a cpvid-positive employee had close contact with, to send out warnings to self-isolate.

If only your company can do similar, and for everybody that that sick manager appears to infect, the company takes their lost productivity out of his pension.

 

[Zlotnick]

but comedians in the 80s didn't see the censorship of today coming. either

Are you daft?

There is LESS CENSORSHIP of Comedy now, than in the 80's. Yeah, your Andrew Dice Clays got told to take their tired, sexist bullshit and fuck off, but plenty of foul-mouthed and boundary-pushing folk are seen nightly on stage and screen across the country.

It's just harder to get away with *actually* being an asshole, than it used to be, due to social media, prevalence of cameras and such.

The whole “comedians can’t say anything anymore” was started by Seinfeld’s sad attempt to rehabilitate Michael Richards’ image. Which is extra problematic given the public mood at the moment.

The latest one to tow this line is Chris D’Elia who went on a protracted rant about how things comedians say during their sets, on stage, shouldn’t be taken so seriously — WHILE HE WAS DOING A SET, ON STAGE.

Sorry comedians, but you can literally say anything you want. No one can stop you. But we aren’t obligated to shower you with fame and money if we don’t enjoy lazy misogynistic and racist stereotypes being passed as comedy. And you can’t have it both ways — being counter-cultural truth-tellers while simultaneously dodging any and all flack with “hey, it’s just jokes guys!”

 

[Deleted member 4603]

Or Louis C.K.

Had all of that just been an act, him shitting on assholes, it'd be hilarious.

Once it came out that he was *actually a fucking asshole*, he was dropped like a can of hot poo. As should be.

 

[Zlotnick]

It is we, the users, who have made Facebook and Twitter into the behemoths they now are.

It is we, the users, that Zuckerberg really cares about.

It is we, the users, who must drop Facebook and Twitter, no matter how painful and habit changing.

If we stick around, everything will be back to "normal" in a few months.
Until we, the users, realize that the only way out is to stop using these platforms, for good, nothing will really change.

Ineffective. Users don't pay any money to Facebook; advertisers do. There are far fewer advertisers than there are users. Convincing a meaningful number of advertisers to abandon the platform is much easier than convincing a corresponding number of users, and peeling off advertisers directly costs Facebook money.

Even if you manage to strip away a significant number of users (you won't) Facebook can coast for years on amassed data; change will be slow and ineffective. Users are certainly better off without Facebook, but that's not how you get Facebook's attention.

Stripping off advertisers got their attention in a couple of days.

You’re more right than wrong. But the next phase isn’t advertising, it’s manipulating. As Facebook got it’s hand slapped over previously, they’re running experiments on people to see what manipulating users’ feed does to their emotions (and therefore prime them to buy X or vote Y).

So losing “users” does hurt Facebook.

 

[snakys]

This is a great article showing that you never believe anything Zuckerberg says. He runs Facebook like an Orwellian regime.


Spies, Lies, and Stonewalling: What It’s Like to Report on Facebook

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/repo ... cebook.php

 

[Thad Boyd]

but comedians in the 80s didn't see the censorship of today coming. either

Are you daft?

There is LESS CENSORSHIP of Comedy now, than in the 80's. Yeah, your Andrew Dice Clays got told to take their tired, sexist bullshit and fuck off, but plenty of foul-mouthed and boundary-pushing folk are seen nightly on stage and screen across the country.

It's just harder to get away with *actually* being an asshole, than it used to be, due to social media, prevalence of cameras and such.

The whole “comedians can’t say anything anymore” was started by Seinfeld’s sad attempt to rehabilitate Michael Richards’ image. Which is extra problematic given the public mood at the moment.

The latest one to tow this line is Chris D’Elia who went on a protracted rant about how things comedians say during their sets, on stage, shouldn’t be taken so seriously — WHILE HE WAS DOING A SET, ON STAGE.

Sorry comedians, but you can literally say anything you want. No one can stop you. But we aren’t obligated to shower you with fame and money if we don’t enjoy lazy misogynistic and racist stereotypes being passed as comedy. And you can’t have it both ways — being counter-cultural truth-tellers while simultaneously dodging any and all flack with “hey, it’s just jokes guys!”

TBF I don't think anybody ever described Jerry Seinfeld as a counter-cultural truth-teller.

 

[Zlotnick]

but comedians in the 80s didn't see the censorship of today coming. either

Are you daft?

There is LESS CENSORSHIP of Comedy now, than in the 80's. Yeah, your Andrew Dice Clays got told to take their tired, sexist bullshit and fuck off, but plenty of foul-mouthed and boundary-pushing folk are seen nightly on stage and screen across the country.

It's just harder to get away with *actually* being an asshole, than it used to be, due to social media, prevalence of cameras and such.

The whole “comedians can’t say anything anymore” was started by Seinfeld’s sad attempt to rehabilitate Michael Richards’ image. Which is extra problematic given the public mood at the moment.

The latest one to tow this line is Chris D’Elia who went on a protracted rant about how things comedians say during their sets, on stage, shouldn’t be taken so seriously — WHILE HE WAS DOING A SET, ON STAGE.

Sorry comedians, but you can literally say anything you want. No one can stop you. But we aren’t obligated to shower you with fame and money if we don’t enjoy lazy misogynistic and racist stereotypes being passed as comedy. And you can’t have it both ways — being counter-cultural truth-tellers while simultaneously dodging any and all flack with “hey, it’s just jokes guys!”

TBF I don't think anybody ever described Jerry Seinfeld as a counter-cultural truth-teller.

If you listen to him talk about the current zeitgeist with respect to comedy, he sees himself as some sort of edge lord. I personally think he’s more milquetoast than Jim Gaffigan.

 

[Cthel]

The BBC is reporting that the Lego group have joined the boycott, suspending advertising on all social media platforms for 30 days

 

[msaroff]

Am I the only one who thinks that the boycotters are going to discover that ditching Facebook's privacy invading ad tech will make very little difference to sales?

If this unintentional experiment shows that dropping Facebook ads does not harm the bottom line, Facebook is in a world of hurt.

Only a small percentage of marketing people are actually able to correlate sales with marketing projects in a useful manner. The rest pretend it works and throw money at the problem.

An example of the truth of Upton Sinclair's aphorism, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Whether the advertising works or not, these folks make their salaries on a percentage of the ad buy.

 

[Deleted member 807857]

According to NPR, Ford has also joined the boycot. They also, if I'm not mistaken, sided with California against trump over his "let's lower gas mileage in cars" idiocy. *Sighs* Ok, maybe not so bad of a company after all, but I will NEVER say that the 80's model Mustang was anything more than a methed up go-cart.

I mean, WTF? I loved He-Man as a kid, as well that 4NonBlondes song as a teen, but along comes YouTube and left *that* little scar across my psyche. That scrawny Fresh Prince goofball with the stupid haircut I laughed at? Really? *Unmanfully wipes abit of drool away* That Cosby Show my whole family watched because "America's Dad"? Ooooowwwww

Japan accidentally nukes *themselves* and spends almost a decade pouring radioactive crap into one of the strongest ocean currents on this planet, but do we have Godzilla? Noooooo, of course not!

I loved Marvel Comics, and hated on DC, but... Ok, that one I got right... So far... Unless their next End boss turns out to be HR Puffinstuff or some shit like that... Oh, right, probably won't going to a movie theater for awhile...

TL;DR:
Dear Reality: You're an asshole, and I hope you get crabs from a hooker.

LOL... I felt like I was reading an excerpt from a contemporary version of William Faulkner. Talk about stream of consciousness!

"All who wander are not lost." - Tolkien

But some sure appear to be.

I blame Alberquerery... Albakirkwee... Alba...
Mmmm, Jessica Alba *drools abit*

If my silliness brings laughter to even a single person,
especially in times as trying and troubling as this,
then maybe the path I wander isn't so lost.

[stares intently at Mindstatic]

[nods at gray]

I like this one.

Someone get him a VIP membership to TPL stat.

Thanks!
*Stage whispers*
Did I miss the exit for Timbuktu?
*Glances about confusedly*

 

[Random_stranger]

I don't see where anyone would find Facebook to be a credible source of information concerning anything. Their entire philosophy has been to avoid acting responsibly in any way when it comes to the content they promulgate.
They simply don't care about the kind of damage they are doing. They may care about the loss of some revenue and will make some cosmetic changes to appease advertisers, but the bottom line is that they still won't be guided by principled judgement.

If the rise of Trumpism has proven anything it's that about a third of the US adult population will believe absolutely anything, no matter how obviously insane, so long as it's wrapped in the appropriate Trumpian packaging.

And actually, Facebook does care about the loss of revenue from these people, that's why they've been catering to the extreme right for so long. They don't want to lose that revenue stream and will fight like hell to keep it. Facebook's principle is clear, if they can profit from hate, they're happy to do so.

If they can profit from ANYTHING, they're happy to do so. So far we haven't found a bottom on what shit they're willing to pull, from hate to subverting democracy.

To be honest though, it's not just Facebook. There's several extreme right media empires that profit handsomely from selling bullshit to rubes. Fox News. Sinclair. Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. OAN. This list goes on and on of people and companies that get filthy stinking rich by making sure that fascism is front and center and on sale. And unfortunately, hate sells better than sex.

That's not surprising - the Bible frowns on many aspects of sex, while the OT is mostly a license to hate others, if you can spin them anti-God in some way.. Seems the NT and "love ALL others, not just those like you - even the pagans do that" part hasn't made it to most parts of the US yet..

 

[CraigJ ✅]

LOL... I felt like I was reading an excerpt from a contemporary version of William Faulkner. Talk about stream of consciousness!

"All who wander are not lost." - Tolkien

But some sure appear to be.

I blame Alberquerery... Albakirkwee... Alba...
Mmmm, Jessica Alba *drools abit*

If my silliness brings laughter to even a single person,
especially in times as trying and troubling as this,
then maybe the path I wander isn't so lost.

[stares intently at Mindstatic]

[nods at gray]

I like this one.

Someone get him a VIP membership to TPL stat.

Thanks!
*Stage whispers*
Did I miss the exit for Timbuktu?
*Glances about confusedly*

https://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/201 ... ainst-him/

Gird thy loins and guard thy sanity...

 

[argamond]

AFR says that Mark said no because the big advertisers only represent a small part of their revenue.

And to close...

A bigger problem is that Facebook has, in a new take on that old maxim, privatised the profits of unconstrained free speech, but socialised the cost.

When a white supremacist picked up a semi-automatic weapon and gunned down 51 New Zealanders with the express purpose of making a "real effort" Facebook post, it wasn't Facebook that paid the cost of its insistence on uncensored posts for everyone. Someone else did.

When Facebook refuses to censor posts that state COVID-19 is a conspiracy, or when it refuses to put limits on what politicians such as Donald Trump can say on its platform because it doesn't want to be an arbiter of what's true, it's not the one picking up the tab. Others are. Facebook merely rakes in the profits that such controversies generate.

 

[Thud2]

...they've been puting warning labels on records since the 1980s, Mr. 2.

 

[Thud2]

So you agree?

 

[Thad Boyd]