Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree this is smart, because it's a win-win for Warren: either the ad remains online and it does its work, or it gets taken down and that's a forced Streisand.

But I don't think this is an overreaction, specially because this isn't solely about Facebook: if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal.

Antitrust issues have been risen when Amazon promoted some products over others.

The main questions, at least for me, are: what kind of action is acceptable for these companies? Have they grown beyond their own governance?

And this applies to other companies as well. If Twitter were to shut down the POTUS account for violating TOU, people would also wonder the state of limbo of some platforms: should everyone be treated in equal terms? Does it bear some responsibility as an intermediary for public officials? Should it be subject to some standard verification protocol other than the one put in place by its engineers?

It also raises questions for the user cases: should governments and public officials use social media indiscriminately? Traditional media has a certain democratic access to government: should governments give a specific social media platform preferential treatment? Should there be a call for bids when choosing a social media platform over others?



> a forced Streisand

For those who didn’t catch the reference, this is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect


Thanks for the link. I'd never heard of this being called a "Streisand effect" before.


Ironically, that's evidence agaist its existence as an effect.


The phenomenon described is common - making a noticeable effort to hide something draws more attention to what you're trying to hide.

Attributing it to a specific individual seems a little weird to me. It'd be like calling lashing out in anger "the Depp effect."


Phenomena get named. Good names are in short supply. Names of individuals are used as an easy cultural shorthand.


Yes, but that then adds a communication barrier. There are more universal ways to describe what happened.


> if Google removed or downgraded search results for Warren - a US senator and presidential candidate - that would be a worldwide scandal.

Would it? A number of Republican candidates note that their email goes straight to spam in Gmail, while messages from Democratic candidates do not, even without any obvious difference in delivery efforts by the sender. Nobody cares.


> But I don't think this is an overreaction

The overreaction was on facebook's part.


Well, one could argue that the ad campaign was made in bad faith. Warrens people knew it would be flagged automatically by fb's algorithms because of the logo. No one at Facebook actually decided to pull the ad. And it wouldn't have been, if it weren't for going against ToS. The damage is done. But very insidious tactic still.


You're right, I misread that.


For Google, it would've been easy. Rank some other Warren-related site above her antitrust page. If they can't find one, have someone make one.

For $100, they should've left it alone.


What if FB makes sure the ad sees non impressionable audience?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: