Should advertising on social networks be banned?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 week ago

    The ban should happen and It would be rather straightforward: 

    The U.S. would disallow all individually targeted ads, with large fines or even removal from the public airwaves for repeated violations. Nothing tied to a user’s identity should be used to serve them a particular message. Companies would have to make all ads on its networks publicly viewable and searchable, so regulators can oversee them.The ban would remove the financial incentive to collect data and spy on users. Companies still might do it, to understand what keeps users on their sites. But competitors can overcome that by delivering compelling and useful content, which may actually become important again.

  • audrey
    Lv 7
    2 weeks ago

    In a perfect world, yes. But then we'd have to pay a fortune to use them.

  • 3 weeks ago

    No, as running a website at that sort of level gets seriously freakin' expensive, and advertising revenue is needed to pay the bills, pay the staff + keep any investors happy.

    Regular shared paid tenner a month hosting doesn't have the guts to run a social network properly without the server starting to struggle because of demand, so requires a dedicated server package costing £35 to £150 a month (£420 to £1800 a year)

    Domain names cost money too... even if the main one is included in the hosting package it's still recommended to buy the variants to avoid the brand name getting hi-jacked by people if you don't get a full set it in variations:

    - .co.uk

    - .com

    - .net

    - .org

    - .org.uk

    - .info

    (and various other domain endings).

    It's usually necessary to upgrade any CDN package to the full offering from either Cloudflare or Akamai (another extra monthly fee)

    It's also likely necessary to upgrade the SSL security certificate from the free/cheap £25 a year version to the full banking grade one that costs £200 a year that 1&1 UK/Ionos offers.

    Then you also need teams of designers, cyber security experts, moderators & coders to keep things fresh + stop the site getting over run by spam sign-ups.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    You have been spamming for a very long time.

    I wish you would stop.  I will continue to report you every single time.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    Yes. It should. At once.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced Wednesday that the social-media platform he runs will no longer allow political advertising. The company has reached the judgment that “political message reach should be earned,” as when people decide to follow or retweet a politician, rather than “bought,” as with targeted political ads. Commercial ads are fine, he argued. But political ads, which “can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions,” present new challenges to civic discourse, including “machine learning–based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.” 

    It isn’t clear that political advertising affects the lives of millions any more profoundly than commercial advertising for unhealthy drinks or more effective birth control or pornography or guns or fad diets or Hollywood films or video games or credit cards does—but let that pass. What about political ads advocating for an issue rather than a candidate? “We considered stopping only candidate ads, but issue ads present a way to circumvent,” Dorsey explained. “Additionally, it isn’t fair for everyone but candidates to buy ads for issues they want to push. So we’re stopping these too.”

    Political advertising is still allowed on Facebook, where its accuracy is not policed. When reaffirming that policy recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asserted a need to be careful about adopting more rules that restrict what people can say. He doesn’t think that censoring politicians is right. “Although I’ve considered whether we should not carry these ads in the past, and I’ll continue to do so … so far I’ve thought we should continue,” he said. “Ads can be an important part of voice—especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates.”

    Business implications aside, would democracy be better off if Facebook followed Twitter and banned political ads or if pressure to do so led it to police ads for accuracy? I’m baffled by everyone who is confident in either position, given how little we know about key variables.

    First, remember that Facebook is global.

    Facebook has 270 million users in India, 130 million users in Indonesia, 120 million users in Brazil, 82 million users in Mexico, 68 million users in the Philippines, 58 million users in Vietnam, 46 million users in Thailand, and 37 to 38 million users each in Egypt, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. A ban on political ads might be good for some countries and bad for others.

    As for issue ads, do they help activists for marginalized causes reach larger audiences? Do they help stoke division and anger? If they do both of those things, to what degree and with what effects? On even a single issue such as climate change, or health-care policy, or a local minimum-wage law, do we truly understand what effect Facebook issue ads have had or will have on public opinion? If not––and I can find no reliable research––how can we be confident in the effects of an overall ban?

    As for whether Facebook should start policing accuracy in its ads, questions include whether the typical Facebook ad is more or less accurate than ads in other media; what percentage of past and present Facebook political ads would run afoul of whatever standards were adopted; whether inaccurate Facebook ads have a significant effect on public opinion; and how accurate, inaccurate, and evenhanded the ad checking would be.

    Attachment image
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.