Does it succeed 99% of the time?

It's close to it. I can't remember ever seeing an ad in my newsfeed that was incorrectly labeled with a political affiliation disclaimer. Have you?

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.)

Your anecdotal experience is completely irrelevant to the statement that you made.

Thank you, captain obvious, and it's actually not. If the system was doing poorly, we'd be able to directly observe it.

Do you have evidence that their political ad detection does poorly?

I don't have any evidence, because I don't use Facebook. Furthermore, I never made any claims to provide evidence for.

Do you have evidence or source for the claim you made? Or are you just here to call people silly names and pass anecdotes off as fact?

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.

That's not how statistics, or debate, works

Agreed. It seems that these institutions are unwilling or unable to pay for talent and that they don't have the capacity--in terms of processes and culture--to leverage that talent even if they were able to acquire it.

Here's a relevant comment thread from a post a few weeks ago about Wells Fargo going offline:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19110672

Hello!

I thought it would be interesting to play with some of the incentives underlying social content aggregation.

The idea is to measure content by its value to users and to enable contributors to be rewarded for sharing high-value content.

I tried to cater the design to mobile devices and one-on-one interactions.

Because of the dollar barrier, the vast majority of posts and replies won't have any votes. Content that actually generates activity should hopefully be interesting and different from what's surfaced by unqualified popularity.

Other notes:

- replies are just posts

- accounts are optional

- light/dark theme (click the arrow icon)

- Vue SPA + Firebase with plans to move to SSR (Nuxt)

How are you combating against people putting vast amounts of money and effectively deciding what is worth discussing?

The main countermeasure is that each vote can only move the score by one point.

Regardless of how much of an additional tip a voter decides to give to a poster, the voter would have to vote N times to move the score by N points. This becomes less economical as the overall user base grows. But more generally, I think that money already plays a huge role in deciding what is worth discussing. From promoting a blog post on Facebook to lobbying, we see this kind of influence across media throughout society.

On one hand, reputation matters on Hacker News because of the high-value culture maintained by users and administrators. But this doesn't scale past a certain size, and reputation becomes something that not everyone can earn or buy on equal terms. Consider celebrity accounts on Twitter bootstrapped with fake followers or karma farming and vote manipulation on Reddit.

On the other hand, I think one way to look at this project is as a micro-crowdfunding platform for interesting ideas with curation serving as a form of gamification or competition.

While I think that being explicit with money might have an interesting effect on what content gets surfaced, it might also be interesting to maintain a subreddit with mirrored content to compare the results.