Cherry-picked examples of an incredibly complex system failing (when it succeeds 99% of the time) aren't particularly compelling arguments against the system.
I found it odd that the first thing I searched for returned dozens of different ads that were all flagged for being political when they clearly aren't.
“This ad ran without a disclaimer. After the ad started running, we determined that the ad was related to politics and issues of national importance and required the label. The ad was taken down.”
Seems like a pretty arbitrary rule set. I'd love to see some examples of ads that don't have anything related to any of those topics. It seems like it would be pretty easy to argue that any ad is related to at least one of those bullets
I'm curious, are they notified when their ads are taken down? Or does facebook do "shadowbanning" themselves? I'd expect them to do it when nation-state interests are involved, but I guess nothing stops them from taking in the money from the regular folk and lying about ad impressions when an ad goes against their interests.
From what my results indicate, they stop the ads from running. So you wouldn't see ads that were incorrectly labeled, you WOULDN'T see ads that should be running but were incorrectly flagged as needing a political affiliation label.
And from the looks of the Yoga ads, there are hundreds that have been flagged/paused as needing to disclose they are political (when they actually aren't.)
Anecdotally someone may have evidence of poor performance. Assigning a specific number to its statistical probability based on that anecdotal evidence is where the problem lies.
