> Ban non-geographically targeted political ads.

This actually sounds like a good idea. Ads about issues pertaining a whole region should be seen by the whole region.

> Create a public repository of all political ads.

Doesn't this exist already? https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/

> The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Not saying this wouldn't be good, but how would this help with the whole content moderation debacle? It looks to me like Twitter, YouTube, etc has the same issue. This specific problem doesn't sound like something that would be magically fixed if there was more competition, though I might be wrong.

I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising. It seems like the goal, or at least the unintentional effect, is to reinforce the traditional media’s monopoly on political discourse.

Traditional media political ads can't micro-target people that are more likely get sucked into their made up "facts" and conspiracy theories.

They also are broadly broadcast so that they can be dis-proven and discussed. Instead they are hidden away only shown to people that won't question it.

If facebook wants to do political ads then it needs to disconnect them from targeting, publish them for public display, publish who paid for the ad, and moderate them to some basic level of being truthful.

> people that are more likely get sucked into their made up "facts" and conspiracy theories. If these people are so easy to fool and manipulate, why do we allow them to vote? If all it takes is some post on Facebook to change their votes, there will be dozens of other easy ways to manipulate them. Are the other ways better because they more opaque or tend towards one ideology or another? Almost all of these arguments boil down to "People are dumber than me so I should be able to control what they see". Dress it up however you want but ultimately this is about feelings of intellectual superiority and a desire to control outcomes in favor of those who wish to control the narrative.

Not dumber, but easily influenced by lies. Similar to how scammers prey on the elderly.

> Traditional media political ads can't micro-target people

They may not "micro-target", but they can definitely target them.

Any political campaign will tell you they do their damnedest to ensure their ads are running at the right times on the right TV/radio stations.

Honestly, hours of traditional media itself (Fox, MSNBC) likely does far more to bias opinion than handfuls of 30-second ads.

Do you think direct mail should be banned too? That is the original microtargeting platform, and is a $44bn industry (so only recently surpassed by Facebook in $ terms)

> Do you think direct mail should be banned too?

It should, but only because it's incredibly annoying.

I’d put it differently: targeted ads allow campaigns to do more with less by focusing on people who are more likely to be receptive to their messages. That’s a valuable thing that shouldn’t be prohibited.

> targeted ads allow campaigns to do more with less by focusing on people who are more likely to be receptive to their messages

Fair point. I suppose targeting could be balanced against a public cool-down period.

So you can randomly target people in the district now. Or, make your targeted ad publicly available for N days before it goes out. This would let the public see it, check it, and potentially respond before the damage is done.

No censorship. Just a head start for the public if a campaign wants to target.

> I disagree strongly with closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising.

I feel like you are inadvertedly misrepresenting OP's point. The OP specifically referred to geographically targeted ads, which have already a long history of being manipulated to subvert the Democratic process by foreign actors with disastrous consequences, and instead you somehow are talking about "closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising"?

It might not have been your intention but your post sounds like a disingenuous strawman.

OP said “ban non-geographically targeted ads.” Besides, the “long history of being manipulated ... with disastrous consequences” is a [citation needed] assertion. Certainly, the thin support for that position doesn’t overcome the fact that it makes total sense to allow targeting ads by geography. There is no point in Trump running ads in Baltimore, or Warren running ads in rural Virginia.

> OP said “ban non-geographically targeted ads.”

Yes, and you've made a gross misrepresentation by equating it wi "closing off an entire sector of content to political advertising." It's a very disingenuous take on what was actually said.

> Besides, the “long history of being manipulated ... with disastrous consequences” is a [citation needed] assertion.

Really? In this day and age are you still trying to turn a blind eye to the elections in the US and the UK?

> Certainly, the thin support for that position doesn’t overcome the fact that it makes total sense to allow targeting ads by geography.

You're again coming off as very disingenuous by misrepresenting what was actually said, as the OP specifically talked about non-geographically targeted ads and you in turn decided to talk about the exact opposite.

Genuine question - where is the concrete evidence of harm from the interference in the 2016 elections? We hear a lot about how Cambridge Analytica destroyed the political process, or Russia... But what are the facts in evidence for harm?

Put another way: how can we determine actual harm caused, and be sure that it isn't blown out of proportion? (IE Cambridge Analytica playing up their capabilities to get new customers)

How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all? They don't even share ad inventory. It looks like you're out to hurt the company and that's it.

> How would breaking up FB into Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp help with this at all?

Moderation policy is an axis of competition. Letting each platform explore moderation systems (a) let’s us compare results, (b) reduces the damage a single company’s bad policies can inflict, (c) and gives users on both sides alternatives if they disagree.

It's called punishment, and it helps to discourage negative behavior.

Ah, okay. I thought we were looking to solve a problem, instead we want to inflict vendetta because we don't like something.

> Assumes FB causes no harm because we've yet to articulate the problems it causes.

Look through my posts in this thread. FB causes shitstorms of damage not the least of which is aggregation / indoctrination of dissention through isolation.

FB is basically pushing monsters outside of its gates in hopes they "go away". They wont. lol.

Also there are legal practices call "punitive damages" so yes there exists legal statutes for punishing things that we determine we dont like.

The problem is that leaves you open to e.g. Car companies putting out ads that promote their gas guzzling cars while banning climate change ads that might warn of the consequences of using such vehicles.

If you do what Twitter is now doing[1], "restrict rather than outright ban", you're back to having to serve as an arbiter.

[1]https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/15/20966897/twitter-politic...

> while banning climate change ads that might warn of the consequences of using such vehicles

My comment suggests no such banning. The ads simply couldn't be micro-targeted. They'd also need to be made public, so the public, journalists and other interest groups could review, vet and respond to them.

I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up? Google is a far more threatening power over my day to day activities.

Even if you don't use these services, they use you. The tools these companies provide to different websites to use will collect data about you. So just visiting a website you are affected. You seem to recognize how Google affects you, but the FB products do as well.

So in that case you are essentially using their products, because their software and services power lots of other services. There are alternatives, I just don't care enough to pursue them. Who cares if someone has tracked my data I like having the internet the way it is.

They all have an enormous effect on your life whether or not you use them. Yes, Google should be broken up too.

how?

Facebook's immense power makes it much more difficult for competing messaging systems, social networks, VR-related companies, and others to enter the market. When they do find any success, Facebook usually acquires them. The effects of monopolies and oligopolies on economies and societies are well-established.

If you live in the US, or Europe, or pretty much any country Facebook operates in, the company is spending millions of dollars every year to lobby your government. While that may not sound like a lot, political influence is surprisingly cheap, and effects you whether or not you choose to participate in the political process. The CEO meets regularly with the president of the United States and his close associates, and has met and spoken with many other world leaders.

Facebook is a major facilitator of violence and ethnic cleansing around the world (https://time.com/5197039/un-facebook-myanmar-rohingya-violen..., https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-india-content/fa..., https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/chinse-media-fa...). You might argue that if they couldn't use Facebook, people would just use some other platform or tool to accomplish the same goal. That's possible, but if it's happening on Facebook, the company has a responsibility to take action, and they have failed. I don't think there is any other platform that could be used as effectively as Facebook and WhatsApp for this purpose.

Even if you don't use Facebook, they likely have a profile for you if anybody you know uses it. They collect contacts from peoples' phones, and scan for faces in all photographs (and correlate the results with other photos). If you don't have robust ad and tracker blocking in your web browser, Facebook is tracking your behavior with their ubiquitous like buttons and analytics scripts.

> I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up?

Because they are a dragnet of private information that is used specifically against your best interests, both private and public.