from Hacker News

Meta allows ads saying 2020 election was rigged on Facebook and Instagram

by antiviral on 11/15/23, 9:42 PM with 147 comments

• by cowsup on 11/15/23, 9:52 PM

  > Meta will now allow political advertisers to say past elections were “rigged” or “stolen”, although it still prevents them from questioning whether ongoing or future elections are legitimate.

  I think this is a pretty terrible attempt to cater to both sides. Implying that an ongoing election is illegitimate is "against the rules," but saying the current incumbents are illegitimately there is "allowed?" Why?

• by cdme on 11/15/23, 9:56 PM

  Turns out outsourcing public discourse to a wholly unscrupulous private entity was, perhaps, not the best decision.

• by standardUser on 11/15/23, 10:19 PM

  Would they allow a Coca Cola run an ad that claims Pepsi donates to the KKK? How about an ad that claims "our competitors" donate to the KKK?

  If you claim an election is "rigged" or "stolen", those scenarios require a culprit. Who rigged the election? Who stole it? A very serious smear is being made that has no basis in reality, and I don't think that kind of defamation is generally allowed just because the parties being defamed are ill-defined.

• by bartwr on 11/15/23, 10:22 PM

  Being cynical, conspiracy, or half joking (or maybe all of the above? :) ): this means that the big tech bets on the orange guy coming back.

  Let's entertain this idea: They have much better behavioral and sentiment analysis tools than anyone else (this is why they are so much better at ad targeting! Their ads work and everyone in marketing says are worth this extra cost). And if they knew he will (obviously not certain, just with a high enough probability), wouldn't they try to play a bit safer for him to avoid an immediate retaliation?

• by dataflow on 11/15/23, 10:05 PM

  Why are "rigged" and "stolen" lumped together? I thought one means the rules are unfair (legal), and the other means the rules were broken (illegal). These are... very different, no?

• by javajosh on 11/15/23, 10:04 PM

  What is the go to URL that people like that summarizes the debate around censhorship vs speech rights? Like so many other things, it seems to me that both sides have a very strong case, but that ultimately, in all matters, practicality wins. In this case, speech freedom is ideologically correct, and Meta is being short-term practical (money!) but long-term impractical (undermining democracy will undermine key infrastructure upon which Meta depends). E.g. censorship is generally very bad, even extremely bad, but this particular set of claims is a contagion to which large swaths of the public are vulnerable to, and which present a clear and present danger to US democracy. Furthermore, this isn't a case where there is any nuance: every claim of fraud has been undermined. To anyone paying attention to these claims and their response knows the score; so to see the population get swayed because of their own ignorance and prejudice is a sacrifice too great for the altar of "free speech". Especially when you factor in how much less free speech will become if they win.

• by cryptoz on 11/15/23, 9:51 PM

  Well that's tricky right, since the 2020 election was rigged all kinds of ways in favor of the Republicans. So if you're going to allow political ads at all - which clearly they shouldn't - why would you ban things that are truthful?

  Of course I'm aware that the 'rigged' line is typically aimed at the Democrats "rigging" the election since they won - but there is no evidence of that, while there is a plethora of evidence that Republicans rig the heck of out everything they can.

  Seems like it would be much better to just ban political advertising.

• by mwbajor on 11/15/23, 10:03 PM

  Why is it no problem to say that the 2000 election was bogus? It was, and its not a big leap in logic to say that our "leaders" only got bolder since then.

  edit: I dont care about my groupthink points/karma, I truly would like an answer. I dislike both political parties equally and have no skin in the game so please, someone take a stab at an answer to my question.

• by manuelabeledo on 11/15/23, 10:09 PM

  Are misleading political ads this profitable? Or is it just that big tech don't want to spend another dollar on moderation?

• by dogman144 on 11/15/23, 10:11 PM

  This is why it’s so distasteful when ex-Meta trust and safety hires attempt to lead the disinformation space via various think tanks or publishing risk taxonomy.

  They worked at, profited, conveniently left with vested RSUs, and then turn around and try to sell the solutions to a problem they supported. Like taking lung cancer advice from cigarette company scientists.

  Such a morally bankrupt company, and only in a bad way bc they wrap up their work in such flimsy ideals.

• by incomingpain on 11/16/23, 12:46 PM

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict...

  Republicans in state legislatures submitted 425 bills that would restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states—with 33 of these bills enacted across 19 states so far, by October 2021.

  It would seem to me a rather unified reaction to the election. Like as if they may have seen things in their state or other states which indicate they don't believe the election was fair.

  Personally, I saw many things which left my perception that this was absolutely not a fair election. Perception is what matters here, not actual results because that's impossible to gauge.

  When in Detroit you throw out all republican challengers/observers, lock the doors, and board up the windows. I have no manner of saying they cheated, but the perception is that cheating occurred.

  But more importantly, Biden straight up said the Democrats have "most extensive VOTER FRAUD organization” in history." You can watch the original, it's not modified, it's not any sort of deepfake going on.

  After he said this, you cannot just brush it off as a verbal gaff or misspeak in that he meant VOTER PROTECTION. Nope, no way. It was upon the entire democratic party to fix the perception. If indeed they don't have an extensive voter fraud organization... it's their responsibility to prove it. They had to prove a negative... or realistically the gaff is that he shouldn't have admitted to it publicly.

• by tppiotrowski on 11/15/23, 10:10 PM

  I sense a learned helplessness when it comes to these topics. To say that Meta should police these posts hints at the fact that there is no hope for rhetoric or persuasion and that people are not rational.

  Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?

  Suppressing speech has downsides (loss of trust, centralization). Allowing speech also has downsides (misinformation, instigation, hate). How do we decide which is the way forward?

• by slowhadoken on 11/15/23, 10:16 PM

  I don’t know a lot of people who are confident about presidential elections.

• by grecy on 11/15/23, 9:46 PM

  It feels like a dangerous time for society when it is so easy to spread lies to a massive percentage of the population that undermine the the very Democracy that society is based on.

• by lucasyvas on 11/16/23, 4:38 AM

  X, YouTube, and Meta all have the same policy?

  Jesus fucking Christ. If any of you work at any of these places you are part of the problem.

• by ddj231 on 11/15/23, 10:12 PM

  It seems like an endless cycle. It was said that Trump’s win was rigged via Russian collusion. Then that Biden’s win was rigged via voter fraud. So seemingly every election will be considered “rigged”

• by hcurtiss on 11/15/23, 9:54 PM

  I get that everybody wants to ride this particular hobby horse, but in the wake of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, and the behavior of these platforms during the pandemic, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather live with lies I have to filter, than the "truths" they identify for me. I no longer trust the "experts'" definition of "misinformation," and I suspect I never will again.

• by whatshisface on 11/15/23, 9:49 PM

  So there's a fifth circuit ruling out there explaining in detail how the Biden administration pressured a willing Meta to implement the administration's misinformation policy through moderation. Here they are allowing the other side's worst statements through.

  Hopefully this makes it clear that misinformation control in practice really benefits whoever the platform wants to hedge against being in power with no concern for our own interests.

  Here is the ruling if you would like to see what they have been doing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...

• by bakugo on 11/15/23, 10:05 PM

  You know a "conspiracy" is just fact when even Facebook can't deny it anymore.

• by 1970-01-01 on 11/15/23, 10:12 PM

  I don't see this going well for any of the sites if things do get ugly again in 2024. Hard federal prison time would be on the table if these ads are tied back into another coup d'état.

• by newsclues on 11/15/23, 9:51 PM

  I'm sorry I thought it was admitted that the election wasn't fair.