Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Advertising The Media

CNN Contributor Urges: Stop Calling Facebook a Tech Company (cnn.com) 157

Posted by EditorDavid from the no-such-place-as-Farmville dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a CNN opinion piece by Stanford business school lecturer David Dodson: "Senator, we run ads." That's what Mark Zuckerberg told Senator Orrin Hatch earlier this year during his congressional testimony when asked to describe Facebook's business model. The 84-year-old senator was later mocked on social media for not understanding modern technology. But I'd argue that the wily senior senator understood Facebook's business quite well. Hatch was simply getting Mark Zuckerberg to say it out loud. Sometimes it takes an old guy to call out a youngster....

For media companies that run ads, especially ones that use public networks, we tell them that they can't lie or mislead, that it's not okay to advertise cigarettes to children or push prescription drugs without including the risks. We have laws governing deceptive advertisements and Truth in Advertising laws. Companies that run ads can't say a car gets 40 miles per gallon unless it's true. They can't say a movie won an Academy Award unless it did. If you say the wool comes from New Zealand, it must.... When nearly half of Americans get their news from Facebook, its newsfeed should be subjected to the same standards of fairness, decency and accuracy as newspapers, television and other media outlets....

Calling Facebook a tech company is how we got into so much trouble. It's also why, when Zuckerberg answered Hatch, the 34-year-old billionaire smiled in a way that was interpreted by many as smug. As if the senator was too antiquated to grasp the complexities of Facebook's revenue model. I see it differently. The company founder was offering a grin of acknowledgment. The jig was up. Facebook places ads just like most media companies do and should be held to the same overall standards.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN Contributor Urges: Stop Calling Facebook a Tech Company More

CNN Contributor Urges: Stop Calling Facebook a Tech Company

Comments Filter:

  • Facebook has ads? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15, 2018 @06:43PM (#57810158)

    Users are the product! Facebook doesn't need to run ads, the companies and political parties already know to come to Facebook to buy users!

    • Cassandra came from facebook (http://cassandra.apache.org/ [apache.org] )

      So did significant improvements to HBase, PyTorch, Haxl, PHP compilers, and much more.

      And Facebook is inventing sophisticated AI hardware (https://code.fb.com/ml-applications/the-next-step-in-facebook-s-ai-hardware-infrastructure/ [fb.com]) including semiconductor design (https://www.networkworld.com/article/3268974/hardware/is-facebook-looking-to-build-its-own-data-center-chips.html [networkworld.com]). and is the primary contributor to the Open Compute Project's work on

      • Facebook also created a compression standard, zStandard or zstd. This is being used as a mainstream compression algorithm, replacing LZMA/xz for a number of applications. It doesn't get as much compression as "xz -v9e", but it is a lot faster, so achieves a better balance, and decompression is also faster.

      • Big banks & financial firms develop tons of cutting-edge tech as a platform to support their core business. Not to mention governments.

        Does that mean banks and the gov't are tech companies?

        (Open sourcing is an unrelated matter. Note that plenty of true "tech" companies don't open source anything, but the US government does so big-time.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mvdwege ( 243851 )
        The Nazis got us the first operational jet airplane too. Still does not make them any better.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ron_ivi ( 607351 )
          I wasn't suggesting it makes them better.

          I was suggesting that they are more scary because they are a technology leader.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mvdwege ( 243851 )

            In that case I suggest you go a little easier on the superlatives next time, because you may not have meant it, but it looked as if you were praising them.

            And doing technology as a byproduct of your actual goal is not new, so no matter their technological prowess, they are an advertising company.

    • Mad Magazine has ads. The Onion has ads. The *ads* are held to a certain "truth in advertising" standard. That does NOT mean the stories in Mad magazine have to be approved by the administration, or any other government entity.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Huh? Mad magazine is well known for not having ads so as to satirize without fear. To quote publisher Bill Gaines, "We long ago decided we couldn't take money from Pepsi-Cola and make fun of Coca-Cola."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        Never seen an actual Onion magazine

        • Onion publishes a newspaper, freely available on the street in some cities.

        • I didn't know about their unusual policy of not advertising unrelated products, but they have advertised products related to Mad, and those ads are subject to truth in advertising laws. The point is we don't have similar "truth in articles" laws that allow the government to come after you for printing things it doesn't agree are true. Having ads doesn't mean the articles have to be true.

            (Though if you engage in outright libel, the *victim* can sue.)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            True. What Mad shows is that private enterprise can have a lot of power over what is said as well. While not put in jail power, it can be take away means of making a living power.

  • Irony (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Stop calling CNN a news company.

    • Found the Fox News retard. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Compared to Fox or Breitbart, Sesame Street is a news company AND more fact-based, and probably employs more trustworthy actors even if they have to wear muppet outfits - as they do so knowingly.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I guess that's why The Hill, a left-of-center site [mediabiasfactcheck.com], reported that the BBC, Fox News, and PBS [thehill.com] were the most trusted news brands. And that CNN brought up the rear. That's probably why Fox has more viewers [snopes.com] than CNN and MSNBC - combined.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Luthair ( 847766 )
          What does being trusted have to do with facts?

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Fox News being a trusted brand says more about those who trust Fox News than it does about the trustworthiness of Fox News.

  • Anonymous Slashdot contributer urges: (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Stop Calling CNN A News Channel

  • They have a point... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "Data theft company catering to the clueless" is less buzzy but more honest.

  • This is like art (Score:5, Informative)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday December 15, 2018 @06:48PM (#57810188) Homepage Journal

    You can argue all day about whether a creative work has merit, but arguing about whether it's art is ridiculous. Facebook sure as hell isn't in the hospitality business, or manufacturing. Their technology is all in advertising, but technology has been used in advertising as long as there's been advertising. Of course Facebook is a tech company, just like an advertisement in a magazine is art.

    • TFA is stupid. There are no special restrictions on "media companies". Laws and regulations on fraudulent and misleading ads apply to ANYONE doing advertising, whether it is a Madison Avenue advertising firm, Facebook, or an individual posting a Craigslist ad.

      Calling Facebook a "media company" instead of a "technology company" makes no difference whatsoever.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        They are not a media company or a tech company, everyone is being quite explicit, they are a direct delivery advertising agency. They are an advertising platform, that uses social media as bait to get people in and then uses psychological manipulation techniques to keep them hooked. They pretty much are a dickbrain corporation, not giving one fuck about what they do or they harm they cause, as long as they generate maximum profits. They should be held legally liable for the advertisements they show, if fals

      • Calling Facebook a "media company" instead of a "technology company" makes no difference whatsoever.

        Well, a "tech" company will have an easier time getting H-1B visas granted, as opposed to a "media" company.

        But I can't imagine that Facebook would need any H-1Bs . . .

    • It seems that you're splitting hairs. What's the difference between a tech company that sells ads and an advertising company that uses tech? Really, it's just about focus - which thing is more important to the company. Given that Facebook derives 100% of its revenue from advertising, it's arguable that it's more of an advertising company than it is a tech company.

      This has no legal weight, but the author seems to be arguing that this is how we need to start thinking about Facebook if we want to put into m

  • Just as much as google (Score:3)

    by E-Rock ( 84950 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @06:52PM (#57810206) Homepage

    Google is an ad company too. That's where they make their money.

    • Google is an ad company too. That's where they make their money.

      More than Google, actually, because Google (er, Alphabet) has been diversifying. As a percentage of revenue, Alphabet's ad income has been falling steadily for years. It's on track to fall below 80% in the next year or so. Ad revenues are still rising, mind you, but the revenue from other areas is rising faster. Waymo, in particular, is poised to start generating many billions annually in the next few years. It wouldn't surprise me if ad revenue falls below 50% by 2023.

      Facebook gets more than 98% of its

      • That's an optimistic assessment of Waymo's technology. All reports are they still aren't able to send cars out without human drivers, unfortunately. It's good in most cases, but getting the last few percent is harder than the first 90 percent.

        • That's an optimistic assessment of Waymo's technology. All reports are they still aren't able to send cars out without human drivers, unfortunately. It's good in most cases, but getting the last few percent is harder than the first 90 percent.

          No, many people have ridden in Waymo cars with no one behind the wheel. Waymo is being conservative and the now-operational commercial service is still using safety drivers, but that won't last long, at least in the current area of operations.

          And it isn't necessary to get the last few percent to offer a useful service. Imagine, for example, that the cars can safely pull over when they need to, until a remote driver can address whatever situation the car is unable to handle unassisted.

      • I can see Amazon learning from these dickbrain fiascos and becoming the next ad platform for the world. They are probably waiting for the legislation to hit before going full hog. Amazon could start gently rolling out features that replace Facebook...they wouldn't know what hit them.

    • They also make money from businesses that use G Suite.
      And consumers that pay for extra online storage on Google drive (I do).
      And Google Fi, their wireless cell service (I use this, too, sooo much better and cheaper than verizon).
      And Google Fiber, their internet service (I don't use this but would if it was offered in my area).
      I also use Google domains and pay for registration through them and Virus Total which Alphabet owns and is an invaluable free service.

      So yeah, they sell ads, but they are not wholly de

  • I think its worse than that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @06:53PM (#57810210)

    Facebook is not a newspaper. Its more like a town square where people are going about browsing in various shops, gossipping with their neighbors and hanging out. To shout fire in such a place and cause a stampede which leads to deaths is not an exercise of the first amendment. We need to go after Facebook with public order laws not just truth in advertizing laws

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mssymrvn ( 15684 )

      It's a long read, but please teach yourself about the origins of "Fire in a crowded theatre" before using it to try and hack down the First Amendment again.

      https://www.popehat.com/2012/0... [popehat.com]

  • Facebook is a ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @07:00PM (#57810240)

    ... personal data whore.

    The other big box data stores like Apple, Google, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter are particularly pleased that Facebook is at the lead of the media and legislation bow shock.

  • Well doh! (Score:5, Informative)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @07:04PM (#57810254)

    Of course FB is an advertising company that tries to hide behind the fiction of "we're just connecting people!" Isn't that the BS that every marketer since the snake in the garden has pushed?
    Wake up sheeple, our economy, our nation (and every other industrial nation), and our very existence depends on consumerism, and therefore marketing. This is a doublethink that makes it nearly impossible to perceive the true insidious nature of marketing -- lies for profit.

  • They're not the ones lying or misleading, it's the people who actually make the ads or who make the claims that are lying; Facebook itself is just the medium. It's like a newspaper is in the business of collecting and disseminating news, but it's paid for only partially (a small part) by subscriptions... the majority of it's revenue comes from ads. If the newspaper prints an ad that is deceptive or misleading, it's not the one lying... whoever created the ad is.

    Facebook's model is not that dissimilar to
    • So $BigNetwork isn't responsible if they run an ad along the lines of "Jews must be eradicated" because they didn't create the ad?

      I understand I'm getting old and it's getting harder and harder to monitor this stuff. But seems to me if you use your resources to broadcast such blatant bullshit then the resulting avalanche of crap needs to, and will, fall on your head.

      Oh, the company that bought the ad time went broke yesterday? Guess what. They planned to do that. You chose to take their money and

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by meglon ( 1001833 )
        http://kspress.com/sites/defau... [kspress.com]

        There's some reading about the basics (from Kansas of all places). First one that came up on the search, so there it is. Places that carries ads (such as a newspaper or like Facebook) have the right to refuse anything they deem might be offensive. That's not too hard to understand, and if you are getting old, you should already know that. That doesn't mean the medium (whether it's a newspaper or Facebook) has an obligation to check the veracity of every ad that comes

  • The fun of doing more than ads (Score:3)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @07:14PM (#57810290) Journal
    Big tech should have stayed an ad company.
    Let the users be the "publishers" and have the full protection of been a "utility".
    Now that big tech wants to ban, report, detect and curate users they have become more than just an ad company.
    Wonder when the full protection of the Communications Decency Act stops when a platform becomes a publisher?
    Want art great Section 230 to stay? Just let your users content pass.
    Start to publish and take political sides? Become a partisan censor?
    What was government protected allowed platforms to grow.
    Try for algorithmic and human political censorship and the gov free expression legal protections stop as the "ad" company is now just another publisher.
  • At least he's not spamming wordpress blogs... well, not exactly.

  • Shut down (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I think the only real solution here is to shut down the internet.

  • It seems to me the summary has misunderstood where the liability for lying in an ad is placed. It's with the advertiser, not the media where the ad is placed. You can't sue a newspaper for Ford running an ad in it that lies about mileage. If that were the case, that newspapers were required to fact check every ad someone pays them to print, it seems to me that would be the end of advertising.

  • The Facebook Dilemma [pbs.org]

    That's an excellent documentary, especially Part 2. The Facebook system is seriously flawed, Part 2 says. In several countries people have died because of Facebook posts by destructive people.

    • Nobody ever died from a Facebook post. They may have died because of the actions of mentally ill individuals reacting to things they saw on Facebook, but they could have seen those things anywhere. Unstable buildings can kill people, but in order for Facebook to be involved in a death, unstable people are required.

      Lots of people want to use Facebook as an excuse for their actions, but that is not how it works. It doesn't matter where you go, there are liars everywhere and checking up on things before reacti

      • As is explained in the documentary, people are accepting social media as news. But social media has no editor, in many cases. So, often people, especially those with little education, are accepting fake news stories on social media as true.

        Social media managers, especially the Facebook managers interviewed for the linked PBX Frontline documentary, say they have no responsibility.

        "News" without an editor is a social problem that existed far less before the Internet became available because it was too e

        • As is explained in the documentary, people are accepting social media as news.

          I might accept a blog post as news, depending on the blogger. But blindly trusting any source is just daft, especially for media which is easily faked.

        • Bullocks.

          Not taking the word of any rando on the internet as gospel fact without verification from a more legitimate source is damn near the first lesson one learns when getting on the internet for the first time. And that's been the case since the days of usenet, when it was mostly university and industry people who ostensibly should have been more reliable in their veracity than the general public. If, after the first week, you've not noticed that BS abounds, and you're not verifying or disregarding cla

  • um (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday December 15, 2018 @10:34PM (#57810974) Journal

    When nearly half of Americans get their news from Facebook, its newsfeed should be subjected to the same standards of fairness, decency and accuracy as newspapers, television and other media outlets....

    OK, first of all, "newspapers, television and other media outlets" are not in any way synonymous with "fairness, decency and accuracy".

    That said, Facebook is nothing like those things anyway. A Facebook feed is a crazy quilt mix of stuff your friends posted, ads, random crap FB thinks you might be interested in, random crap that pushes their political point of view, etc.

    None of this can end well. There is no way that regulation can ensure "fairness, decency and accuracy".

    With a hat tip to Winston Churchill, free speech is the worst way of handling this ... except for all the other ways.

  • FB Urges.. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Stop calling CNN a news organization

  • of labeling companies with a single arbitrary label we instead list the things they are involved in to help get a clearer picture of what companies are and aren't.

    Calling Facebook a technology company instead of an advertisement provider is silly.
    Calling Facebook an advertisement provider instead of a social network is silly.
    Calling Facebook a social network instead of an open source software developer is silly.
    Calling Facebook an open source software developer instead of a VR company is silly.

  • The author is correct that this is an important distinction and breaking it down into the simplest of terms is absolutely essential. For regulatory bodies to successfully exert authority over a business it is important for that business to be neatly classified. We can see this issue popping up when we see broadband service providers rejecting FTC due to their business classifications, opting for FCC rulings instead. This might cause further problems for Facebook down the line. The trust busters might decide

  • CNN is nothing but the left wing version of fox news.

  • Facebook is neither an advertising company or a tech company. It's a databroker. Their true power lies in getting data about user behaviour into the hands of banks, insurers, governments, etc. That can be used to inform ads. Or it can be used to inform hiring decisions, manipulate elections, etc.

    "Facebook, longtime friend of data brokers, becomes their stiffest competition"
    https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    "Facebook, the new king of databrokers?"
    https://www.wired.com/insights... [wired.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close