Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

staticbrain t1_itjzald wrote

Imagine finding out that companies that make money off of being paid to run ads, allowed someone to pay for something that wasn't true and ran it...

22

jrebney t1_itk5b08 wrote

Next thing we’re going to find out is that switching to Geico might not always save you more on car insurance.

10

[deleted] t1_itmvpt2 wrote

I actually thought their moderation had got better, but then I started getting dodgy adds - autogenerated faux daily mirror articles etc all leading to crypto or matched betting or leveraged stock trading scams. I reported a number with details of why they were misleading … none were taken down as they didn’t violate policy. Moderation still an absolute joke.

2

ProLibertateCH t1_itn8dmf wrote

Imagine they published articles by the NY Times, the Washington Post, HuffPost, The Guardian, CNN and MSNBC ... how could social media ever tolerate such a gigantic load of misinformation? They might think that there was a "Russian collusion".

Or imagine they allowed Biden, Pelosi or Kamala to speak in videos published on social media. People who heard them might not realize immediately that every word they said was a lie. It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 95, but there are some really dumb people in this world...

−1

rexiesoul t1_itk0som wrote

In 1996, we learned that "if it's on the internet, don't believe it until you verify it". It's pretty amazing how people fall for so much stupidity on the internet in 2022.

10

9-11GaveMe5G t1_itk3ah2 wrote

Granny, 2000:

anyone can say anything online. Don't believe a lick of it

Granny, 2020:

THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN! REPOST THIS MEME! FOR EVERY REPOST IS ONE DOLLAR TRUMP WILL DONATE TOWARD JAILING FAUCI!!"

6

rexiesoul t1_itk5zfj wrote

So what DID you win for being the 1,000,000th visitor?!

1

ProLibertateCH t1_itn8k6l wrote

"if it's on CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post etc., don't believe it until you verify it" seems like even better advice.

3

Sekhen t1_itjzb23 wrote

It's ALWAYS about the MONEY, Lebowski!

4

The1stCitizenOfTheIn t1_itk696q wrote

You really think someone would do that?

Just go on the internet and tell lies?

edit:

ffs when did we all decide that we want social media companies to be the top judge of what is true and false?

4

dark_brandon_20k t1_itk3vse wrote

And my account was temp banned for a week for telling Republicans that voting day was Nov 9th

3

Sorry-Business-1152 t1_itkwd6f wrote

Question everything. Fact check EVERYTHING

3

ProLibertateCH t1_itn8tc7 wrote

And insist that EVERYTHING can get published! Only fascists and liars try to censor others.

2

Discally t1_itk0hu8 wrote

LOL

Then 2016 wasn't actually an accident, and the media outlets have learned absolutely zip, zero, nada from it.

LOL

2

supaloopar t1_itk0xgb wrote

Aren’t they supposed to NOT editorialise their content?

Censor these ads, get sued by the ad buyer. Don’t censor these ads, get sued by the truth police. How do we reconcile what is true? There is no truth police/authority.

2

Mares_Leg t1_itk1ns8 wrote

Nope. I heard a redditor fact-checked it and it wasn't true.

2

Ivanthegorilla t1_itk2800 wrote

they have been doing that the whole time while pushing sales of chinese garbage and political crap with covid lies

2

Nice-Supermarket-809 t1_itk3gbz wrote

Granting any authority the power to decree what is truth is the road to tyranny.

2

Ok_Cheesecake_234 t1_itkf005 wrote

Meta looks like they're doing way better this year... only 20% of ads got through compared to 100% last cycle. The title is kinda clickbait.

2

ProLibertateCH t1_itn8o0z wrote

How is that "better"? Less freedom of speech is NEVER better!

2

Ok_Cheesecake_234 t1_itn95at wrote

You have to realize the tough situation these companies are in. They allow misleading ads through? They're blamed for manipulating elections and profiting off of it to push one side's agenda. They censor misleading ads? They get blamed for censoring free speech to push another side's agenda.

There is literally no right decision a social media company can make here that doesn't involve getting completely shat on by ~half the population.

−1

plizark t1_itmsixv wrote

So just like Fox, CNN, Facebook, CNBC, OAN, AP, BBC, etc. no shit

2

Gsteel11 t1_itmq0f6 wrote

I too, have been on Facebook and tiktok. Lol

1

modnor t1_itkwrsn wrote

The ad doesn’t tell you to vote for the person HuffPost endorses therefore it is misinformation

0