March 12, 2019

"Facebook removed several ads placed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign that called for the breakup of Facebook and other tech giants."

"But the social network later reversed course after POLITICO reported on the takedown, with the company saying it wanted to allow for 'robust debate,'" Politico reports.
“Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google," read the ads, which Warren's campaign had placed Friday. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor.”...

“We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use of our corporate logo," the spokesperson said. "In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are restoring the ads.”
Getting censored is really boosting attention to the ad. I mean, it's making me search for it. I want to see how the logo is used. But I haven't found the ad. I stopped when I realized I was putting a lot of effort into trying to see an ad and that was a form of viral ad that was happening inside my head. At that point, I resisted.

72 comments:

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Yet she didn't persist.

Jim Gust said...

I am close to dropping Facebook, which I already have minimized. Never click on any ads. They banned Zero Hedge, probably because ZH criticized them as Warren did.

I'm unclear on how you could break up Amazon or Google.

Chris of Rights said...

"At that point, I resisted."

Nevertheless.

EDH said...

There’s going to be a breakup because of Facebook’s breakout?

Social media really is like high school and puberty.

Aunty Trump said...

No search engine neutrality, but we need “net neutrality” because the hyper billionaires running the search engines and the social networks and the streaming services need politicians who can be bought in control of the networks on which they built their businesses!

The most important thing to a man swimming in money is a government that can be bought. That’s why they hate Trump with such a passion.

Warren is right on this point.

Humperdink said...

There are so many holes in Facebook's dike, Zuckerdork is running out of fingers.

Continued revelations of sharing private information with any and comers will hopefully sink this outfit.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy... But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition... and tilted the playing field in their favor.

Now do The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN.

Aunty Trump said...

I'm unclear on how you could break up Amazon or Google

Oh, you could break up Alphabet pretty easily, and YouTube, GMail.. Google Maps....

Amazon has retail stores, streaming music, streaming movies, etc etc.

Stopped clock is right once a day.

The problem is that they have inveigled themselves so deeply into the Democrat Party that instead of breaking them up, Democrats are trying to help them consolidate their power further through net neutrality.

AllenS said...

Left Facebook last year, and never looked back.

Ralph L said...

Maybe Twitter's bannings will get some air time now.

Tommy Duncan said...

Did Liz drank a beer in the advertisement?

Temujin said...

She's impossible for me to listen to, and I think most of her ideas are 'huh- did she just say that?', but on this she's spot on. This seems to be the ONE TOPIC that can bring everyone together, except those in San Jose and Austin.

mccullough said...

Facebook is acting like an Ivy League school. Controlling the debate. Scolds like Warren aren’t for the free exchange of ideas. She’s just mad they shut her up.

Original Mike said...

""Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google,"read the ads, which Warren's campaign had placed Friday. "We all use them." "

One of them provides a useful function. Well, maybe two. What Facebook provides has always eluded me.

Mark said...

Warren is right.

The Vault Dweller said...

If Elizabeth Warren leads the charge to bust up facebook and other giant tech corps. I will laugh endlessly as they beg for conservatives to save them an encroaching Federal Government. Especially after the years and years they have discriminated against conservative speakers and messages. If there was an emoji for peeing on someone's face as they lie downtrodden on the ground begging for help I would spam it.

Darrell said...

You know who really has too much power?

Government.

iowan2 said...

facebook is refusing to allow any links to Zero Hedge. I don't care what those companies do. The public needs to know they are being spoon fed information, and sources with a different political association are being banned. They need to be exposed as the carnival barkers they really are. Zuckerberg needs to be treated like Pravda

jack said...



Speaking of censorship, check out this article about Kathy Griffin:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kathy-griffin-decapitated-donald-trump-will-hollywood-welcome-her-back?ref=home



MayBee said...

Google actively working to elect Hillary Clinton really has worked out for them, hasn't it. they just sit on the sidelines and laugh (and sort through our email)

MayBee said...

I mean sure, Liz mentioned them. But they are willing to help her like they helped Hillary......

MayBee said...

Darrell said...
You know who really has too much power?

Government.


Amen. To be honest, I wouldn't mind more privacy laws that could affect the tech giants. But I don't want them broken up or controlled by the government.

Limited blogger said...

When does the 'debate' start?

Ralph L said...

Duckduckgo read my mind in the search suggestions last night. I'm still freaked out.

MayBee said...

Why should Facebook have to run the ads? They are getting hit because they have been scapegoated for Hillary. There's a PR firm or two working against them.

But ABC, CNN, and Politico aren't forced to run ads against themselves. In fact, when they are criticized it is a First Amendment Crisis of Democracy.

jack said...

"I mean, it's making me search for it. I want to see how the logo is used. But I haven't found the ad."

Seriously?

Did you think of trying her facebook page?:

https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethWarren/

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Does anyone really think that any leftist would want to harm their benefactors?

I doubt it.

Henry said...

Poor Microsoft. Not even an honorable mention.

narciso said...

Well remember who used to?? represent Facebook, that would be Robert Mueller, he also represented apple.

Henry said...

I'm not sure how you break up Facebook. The whole point of Facebook is that it's not broken up.

You on Facebook? No, since it was broken up I'm on Kneebook. What about you?

CJinPA said...

Jim Gust said...
They banned Zero Hedge, probably because ZH criticized them as Warren did.

---

I just read that this morning. Unfortunately, it was covered by Powerline.com. Not Politico. So the ban remains.

AllenS said...

How on earth would you break up Facebook? Names from A-G, H-M...

If Facebook is eventually broken up, I do not want that fake fucking Indian in charge.

Ray - SoCal said...

Ideas for breaking up amazon

Amazon for books allow openness on Kindle.

Amazon is banning some books / authors, luckily very little so far.

Unbundle prime. Allow prime to only be free shipping.

Separate out the data storage / hosting business. Separate out video. Stop allowing the subsidization of other businesses with predatory pricing. Stop forcing vendors to offer amazon their lowest price.

FTC File suit / investigate when orgs like legal insurrection are banned from the affiliate organization.

Allow the FTC to protect / help Amazon sellers and authors from being preyed upon by amazon.

Fix various laws and regulations, lots of repealing, to make amazon competitors more competitive. One on book inventory comes to mind that results in pumping of books. May be 30% of all books - thanks irs on valuing inventory!


jack said...

Allen doesn't want a fake indian in charge.

I'm guessing he'd much prefer a reality tv star.

Drago said...

Warren identifies as a Big Tech-Break 'em up populist....because her grandparents told her she had the high cheekbones for it.

Michael K said...


Duckduckgo read my mind in the search suggestions last night. I'm still freaked out.


Yeah. I did a search for a little town in Australia a couple of weeks ago and got Air BnB ads on facebook for that town for a week.

I haven't used Google in a year but maybe it was Google maps, which DuckDuckGo uses.

Ray - SoCal said...

The government could use the privacy angle on Facebook and google. It would have a devastating impact.

Going after the publisher vs safe harbor issue.

Lots of possibilities, but due to the money / power of the big 3, I don’t see this happening.

99% of googles profits come from advertising, which subsidizes YouTube, and all the other parts of google.

Force google to make android without the hooks to their advertising...

Howard said...

So now you deplorables won't whine about Google Facebook Twitter anymore because Pokemonhauntis

jack said...

If it comes down to a choice between a fake indian and a dictator-admiring conman, who do you choose?

MayBee said...

How about this: We ban their employees from working for political campaigns and pacs?

AllenS said...

Don't quit guessing, jack. Question: when has anyone suggested Trump run Facebook? That's right, jack, only you have.

Mike said...

Bust up FaceBook? Easy! Spin off Instagram to begin with, and ban it from sharing private data with FB. Spin off their other interests including advertising until all that remains under that brand is the FaceBook and declare it a public forum.

J. Farmer said...

It's amazing how many people still don't understand the basic business model of places like Facebook and Google. They think that by using their services, they're the customer. They still don't understand they are the product.

Bruce Hayden said...

“No search engine neutrality, but we need “net neutrality” because the hyper billionaires running the search engines and the social networks and the streaming services need politicians who can be bought in control of the networks on which they built their businesses!”

In the last week, the House Dems have come out pushing Net Neutrality, which is, as you point out, the Big Three (Google, Amazon, and FB) buying their way out of rate shifting by the much lower margin companies transmitting their streaming data. That is what Net Neutrality is about - the question of who pays for streaming data: the companies benefiting from it, or everyone else. Giving away that the Big Three have bought and paid for the Dems in Congress, the Dem House majority jump to do their bidding.

Fernandistein said...

The Democrat Party should be broken-up after having its six wings pulled off.

Sally327 said...

This reminds me of Jesse Jackson's boycotting/picketing/protesting of companies that didn't do enough hiring or investing in minority communities. A timely donation to his Rainbow Project or whatever front organization he was operating behind would usually take care of the problem. This may be a similar ploy.

It's all about the Benjamins. These tech giants, they have a lot of money. I mean, to rival Harvard's endowment even. Which maybe Warren should take aim at that.

Fernandistein said...

The facebook logo occurs 138 times on this page: f

Browndog said...

Odd that Twitter keeps getting left out of the conversation. Nothing shapes the news cycle and public opinion like Twitter. And does it almost instantly.

Conservative are being banned from the public square, and this idea "it's a private company, they can do what they want" no longer washes.

Caligula said...

Of the Big Four (Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple) Facebook seems to have the most negative public perception. Perception is that they're even not close to honest, that if they say they won't do something they'll almost certainly do it anyway if it's in their interest to do so. Perception is that they're absolutely un-trustworthy.

That, and perception that they're the crack cocaine of internet use, intentionally trying to trap users in a state of distress whenever they aren't constantly checking and re-checking Facebook for one reason or another.

That said, plenty of publications and publishers have refused to run advertising. It's a basic principle that a publisher can decline your ad for any reason or no reason. No one has to run your ad just because you're willing to pay for it.

Fernandistein said...

Conservative are being banned from the public square, and this idea "it's a private company, they can do what they want" no longer washes.

Why not? What metric defines the failure of the free market, and/or when socialism should take over?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Henry said...

I'm not sure how you break up Facebook. The whole point of Facebook is that it's not broken up.

You on Facebook? No, since it was broken up I'm on Kneebook. What about you?


I'm not recommending this, but I could imagine splitting it along the lines of:

Facebook provides a platform on which you can publish your personal crap.
For any piece of information you enter, you get to specify which companies and individuals can see that information.
You get to choose which third party application filters your news feed, serves up ads, etc.

Of course, that leaves the question of how does Facebook make its money, if it does not get to sell your information or serve you ads. Maybe they charge the 3rd party applications a fee for access to the platform.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Censorship = Robust Debate
is it 1984 yet?

Nonapod said...

Amazon, Google, Facebook huh?

I wonder why Twitter escaped Warren's proclamation?

Or how about Apple?

What do they have on her?

Bob Boyd said...

"this idea "it's a private company, they can do what they want" no longer washes."

I agree. Would a private utility get away with refusing to supply electricity or gas to half the population based on their politics?
Why shouldn't the good people do that to the bad people if we're serious about racial justice or saving kids from gun violence or stopping climate denial?

Howard said...

Trumpesinas want lazy faire Free market for pollution, stalinist regulation of speech platforms.

Mike said...

You shouldn’t use French words you don’t understand Howard. There’s the EPA and regulations a mile high on business to prevent pollution. Nowhere near a “hands off” approach. Where are the comparable regulators and laws hampering FB?

Mike said...

CDC should regulate Tweeter FacePlant and Groogle as public health issue. Social media is a social disease. Who will protect the children!

mockturtle said...

I'm torn between Warren and Ayn Rand on this one. If I had to choose between an all-powerful corporation and an all-powerful government, I'd choose the former. And, so far, I can avoid FB, Amazon and [to some extent] Google if I choose. Atlas Shrugged. Or not.

tola'at sfarim said...

She should tweet "learn to code" at Zuckerberg.

Howard said...

Ayn Rand was a social welfare moocher at the end.

Bob Boyd said...

Is Facebook a publisher or just a platform? They want to have it both ways. They want to control content, but not be legally liable for content.

If Facebook controls content and point of view, how are they different from a newspaper or a magazine?
But if they had to have a legal team review everything anyone puts on their Facebook page to avoid lawsuits, they couldn't do it. And even if they found a way, people would stop using the platform.

Bob Boyd said...

If I had to choose between an all-powerful corporation and an all-powerful government

The line between Facebook and the government is more like a pipe line than a border line.

mockturtle said...

The line between Facebook and the government is more like a pipe line than a border line.

I don't do FB and never have. No choice with government.

Bob Boyd said...

I don't do FB and never have. No choice with government.

I get what you're saying. I don't do FB either. And I certainly don't trust Elizabeth Warren. I just don't think requiring FB to live up the same standard other publishers have always had to abide by equals an all powerful government. Neither do anti-trust laws.

Ralph L said...

Let's all go back to MySpace.

mockturtle said...

I get what you're saying. I don't do FB either. And I certainly don't trust Elizabeth Warren. I just don't think requiring FB to live up the same standard other publishers have always had to abide by equals an all powerful government. Neither do anti-trust laws.

I agree, Bob. And I think Warren has been spot-on about big banks, too. Even a broken clock...

stlcdr said...

Facebook must abide by the acceptable speech laws. Government makes acceptable speech laws.

I don’t think the problem really is the banning or shadow banning certain speech or proclamations, it’s that they are two faced about it. If you are free to ban anyone or anything for any reason, just come out and say it. They are banning selectively while saying they don’t or for reasons that are basically lies. Aka. Facebook fake news isn’t what people post but what Facebook does with those posts.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

The line between Facebook and the government is more like a pipe line than a border line.
In-Q-Tel ?

Unknown said...

Amazon for books allow openness on Kindle.

This is already there. Kindles will read unencrypted ebook files just fine just like an mp3 player will play an mp3 from anywhere. There are any sources for enencrypted ebooks including Amazon itself, Project Gutenberg, The Internet Archive and various authors' sites.

(And of course you can put Calibre and Apprentice Alf's decryption tools into the mix and expand the pool pretty far)

Earnest Prole said...

If a private power company conspired to deny electricity to outspoken Progressives, it would properly be seen as a violation of their civil rights. Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to Facebook?

Bruce Hayden said...

Blogger Bob Boyd said...
"Is Facebook a publisher or just a platform? They want to have it both ways. They want to control content, but not be legally liable for content regulators."

The first two places where I think that they might be legally vulnerable are copyright and campaign finance laws. Copyright has a safe haven for Internet service providers who do not edit content. Arguably, the editing done by FB for political purposes brings them out of their safe harbor, and thus opens them up for copyright infringement for the millions of images they have online whose copyrights don't belong to the person posting the images. The other is for in kind political contributions. After all, they admit workg closely with the Obama campaign to get him elected. Beyond that, I suspect that the antitrust laws might be applicable. This would likely involve both the FTC and the DoJ Antitrust unit. I do expect that that they are coming under legal scrutiny.

Jim at said...

More left-on-left fighting.
Here's hoping for injuries.