Mark Zuckerberg Promised a Clear History Tool Almost a Year Ago

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Promised a Clear History Tool Almost a Ye... by gnud on Friday February 22, 2019 @11:49AM (#19226777)

So, I can understand those who argue for ad-supported websites, and against ad-blockers.

But can anyone honestly claim that putting an invisible 'sponsored' on non-sponsored posts is ethically OK? Can't we all agree that ads should be readily identifiable as such?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Promised a Clear History Tool Almost a Ye... by badfrog on Friday February 22, 2019 @11:55AM (#19226831)

> Can't we all agree that ads should be readily identifiable as such?

By human users for sure. Scripts are a whole other question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Promised a Clear History Tool Almost a Ye... by TeMPOraL on Friday February 22, 2019 @12:11PM (#19226977)

Are they though? Why would they be? Or taking it another way, what moral reasoning justifies making it purposefully difficult for scripts (read: user agents) to identify ads?

BTW. to the extent clearly marking ads/sponsored content is required by law, I wonder whether Facebook could be sued for making this difficult for users with disabilities - after all, accessibility tools like screen readers are scripts and rely on machine-readable metadata.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Promised a Clear History Tool Almost a Ye... by JohnFen on Friday February 22, 2019 @07:38PM (#19230646)

> Scripts are a whole other question.

I disagree entirely.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Promised a Clear History Tool Almost a Ye... by ummonk on Friday February 22, 2019 @11:55AM (#19226833)

You mean identifiable to bots? Since they're already visually identifiable to humans, who don't see the invisible 'sponsored'.

[ Parent | on HN ]