That's not what this article is about. This article is whining about Meta banning their ads promoting the article (not even banning the article itself) that violated guidelines and then allowed the ad back on after minor changes such that it would be within guidelines and then acting like Meta is trying to censor the article.
Public advertisements for prescription-only drugs should qualify as a form of disinformation/misinformation, as the reason they are prescription-only is that the involvement of a trained professional who has detailed knowledge of the patient's specific history is absolutely required to determine whether or not the drug is appropriate for that patient's condition.
Even direct marketing to physicians is somewhat questionable, except for the distribution of the results of clinical trials and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the efficacy of drugs, and even these can suffer from conflict-of-interest if the research reports are being generated with funds from the pharmaceutical entity that will benefit from increased sales of those drugs.
Most countries ban social media / cable television / print media etc. advertisements of prescription-only drugs for these reasons.
Drugs are drugs, as the prescription opiate circus priming of the pump demonstrated. Purdue Pharma marketing campaigns created hundreds of thousands of addicts who later turned to the illegal heroin / fentanyl market when they lost access to their prescription suppliers.
> the reason they are prescription-only is that the involvement of a trained professional who has detailed knowledge of the patient's specific history is absolutely required to determine whether or not the drug is appropriate for that patient's condition
Yeah let's continue weaponizing "misinformation" to broadly apply it to what we don't like. If someone is selling something illegally online, there are already laws for this.
I will say that from direct family and friends experience, a lot of family doctors are not aware of everything that's out there, particularly older doctors who may not be keeping up with new developments, and even more specifically women's health advancements..
Do your own research and find products or drugs that might work for you and then bring that to your doctor for a conversation about whether or not it could work for you.
That's where the marketing comes in for the public. Yes it works for the drug companies too, but if there was some law that meant no one could advertise or talk about these, we would be counting on our doctors to be always aware of all the newest things, and that's just not the reality.
If you sit around waiting for your doctor (who has hundreds, maybe thousands of patients) to bring all the right solutions to you, you're not going to get the best care you can.
So yeah, I agree there's challenges with marketing these products, but it's not a clear cut situation.
I'd love to hear what an actual M.D. thinks about those commercials begging the general public to "ask your doctor about FooBarzin!!" After the COVID fiasco, I'm highly skeptical of lay people's ability to dO tHeIr OwN rEsEaRcH about medicine.
I feel like, as a computer professional, if someone came up to me and said "A really loud commercial told me that I need an app with AI and Blockchain in it! Can I pay you to write one for me?" I'd be... annoyed?
I think the answer is as always nuanced. There are good/proactive/available and bad/lazy/overworked doctors, just like there are smart and less smart lay people..
Some people do good research, some people do bad research. Generalize at your own risk I guess.
All I know is that when it comes to my own health, I don't leave things only in the hands of my doctor. If I can bring research or information - or even just questions about potential treatments I may have seen advertised - to the table about my own situation, why wouldn't I?
I absolutely trust their professional capacities, but I certainly don't assume they are able to give me dedicated attention or put in the research I can if there's something I need to sort out.
I know for a fact I am one of thousands of patients at my local clinic, so I am realistic about the level of care I receive. You may be in a better situation than me though.
The same author has previous written articles in favor of legalization of drugs. I guess they just don’t want Meta to make the money but rather have it stay in the local communities via mom and pop drug dealers.
I think some drugs should be legalized (MDMA probably via prescription, LSD and shrooms maybe more broadly, Cannabis' current situation in WA state seems quite reasonable). I don't think there's a contradiction between that and thinking the example ads right at the top of the article are far over the line.
There are some places where most of those are either legal or effectively decriminalized... Colorado, SF Bay Area (Oakland and San Francisco), and Oregon come to mind.
MDMA is an interesting one because its far along in the official legalization path as a prescription drug but it doesn't fall into the decriminalization statues typically because it is synthetic (most of them make an exception for naturally derived psychedelics -- so even something very powerful like DMT is covered).
In practice, however, MDMA is widely available via the same channels as other psychedelics which are typically not the same distribution channels for much more habit forming and harm causing drugs like heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine.
Drugs are a complex and nuanced topic, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be pro drugs and also wary of how Instagram is vetting their drug advertisers.
Black market goods vary in quality and ethics and safety, it's absolutely reasonable to say, "ok, you advertise for these, how are you ensuring safety?"
One of the major arguments in favor of legalization is in direct opposition to the black market. Many people think that a well regulated supply and marketplace is strictly preferable to criminal enterprise and everything that goes along with that. It's perfectly consistent to be anti-black-market and pro-legalization.
Succinctly, it's okay to want to change the law, and also favor rule of law.
The original article never seems to substantiate that the firearm ads are for illegal sales. You can legally sell guns lots of places, including the specific ones mentioned in the article (Glocks). ~~There is no inherent problem with advertising guns for sale on Instagram.~~ (EDIT: I stand corrected. It's against TOS. I should say there is nothing inherently illegal about advertising gun sales online).
That just wreaks of alarmism, especially when they use less informed language like "silencer" instead of "suppressor". If there was something about it that is actually illegal they should mention it.
If you are talking about guns and call a magazine a clip, even in a casual setting, you would be instantly made fun of for not knowing what you are talking about. Pop culture absolutely has not given these things two names.
Calling a suppressor a "silencer" is just incorrect.
> But most folks call it a clip because that's what movies and videogames have called them for 40 years.
This is precisely the point. Perhaps there is something illegal about these sales but why should I assume this is the case when the author incorrectly implies the existence of gun ads itself is illegal and use video game and movie terminology to talk about them?
Shouldn’t you base that judgement on the validity of their argument, and not discard the argument outright because of some semantics around the author not using ‘pure’ enough language for you?
They're different technologies. Maybe there could be a "ammunition holding feature" superclass that both belongs. Clips don't have springs, and are used to tidy ammunition, and to aid loading magazines. Old rifles and some revolvers had clip compatibility to aid loading internal magazine. At some point the military stopped using old rifles and some revolvers, making removable magazines far more common.
But that is not even remotely relevant to the topic. The original article don't even use the word "silencer", nor "suppressor", let alone "clip".
There are different kinds of casual settings. In my social circle, if you criticized someone for calling a magazine a clip, you would be instantly made fun of for being such a pedantic nuisance. A clearly left-leaning media outlet like this is likely targeting an audience more like my social circle than ones who would be pedantic about silencer/suppressor or clip/magazine.
A lack of precision is only really a problem when it would cause confusion. In the context of the article, nobody is confused about what they mean by "silencer". A good example of this is that, even while complaining about calling them "silencers" rather than suppressors, the top comment still didn't have any confusion about what was being discussed.
Movies haven't done things bad out of ignorance for many decades. It's always a sound engineer or a director saying "no people expect a movie gun to do X nowadays"
Movie hackers don't work like that because nobody involved knows how computers work, even NCIS had dedicated Computer Consultants for that kind of stuff, but real "hacking" is boring AF, and most people are willing to put that kind of "reality" aside for a better narrative.
I live in rural Iowa where everyone has guns and if someone "well ackshully it's called a suppressor/magazine not a silencer/clip" you would be ridiculed by everyone for being a pedantic clown.
A large part of the world is made up of people that don't live around guns or know the proper names of their parts - living in the UK, the majority of people I know wouldn't know this, I bet it's the same for most of the people in Europe and Asia too.
It's similarly incorrect to call a Ryzen 9 7950X3D a "chip", but if you complained about it, even on a hardcore PC enthusiast forum, you'd probably be downvoted and mocked for being uselessly pedantic.
The impact on society and whether you arent ignorant about firearms is irrelevant. They claim the firearm ads are illegal but dont seem credible because they use outsider language and incorrectly imply firearm ads are illegal in general.
Without comment on the rest of the discussion, a professional journalism outlet should work to be technically accurate to the greatest extent possible. Explain the true term in a one-liner and then use it.
edit: If Tom's Hardware ran an article about a laptop that has 2TB of "memory", I'd be skeptical of their ability to give me the proper information. If I read an article about welfare that calls Medicaid "handouts", I'm going to realize they aren't being objective.
Even if we didn’t, it’s a journalist’s job to inform. Using “clip” isn’t just a colloquialism — it refers to a different thing entirely, and is incorrect.
If they genuinely believe the public is not familiar with “magazine”, they can and should explain the terminology.
However, I sincerely doubt these individuals — especially given their Vice/Motherboard background — knew the correct terminology in the first place.
FYI/PSA, the article does not contain the word "silencer", "suppressor", "magazine", nor "clip". The only relevant part is "silenced Glock handguns". This whole tree is cheap astroturfing exploiting clip-silencer controversy. It shall not be rewarded.
Thanks. I’ll be honest, I’m avoiding giving 404media any clicks and was responding solely to the commentary here.
The last thing I want to do is contribute traffic to vapid outrage-bait Vice/Motherboard-style journalism, and HN has been spammed with their articles for days now.
Yowza, that link to the ad library really does work. Filtering for Canada it took about a minute to find an ad for a telegram channel that's been active for a year, claiming to sell glocks. Is it real? A scam? A honey pot? None of what is being offered is remotely legal here.
Edit: Looks pretty real. He posts vids from his customers showing successful deliveries. Appears to be operating out of Toronto? Maybe one day the cops will figure out how to use a computer and do some actual detective work.
I've seen some on Instagram ads that are essentially human trafficking schemes pretending to be modeling and talent agencies. It's kind of dark and depressing.
Yeah, I've reported a few ads for drugs that have shown up on marketplace. I usually don't hear back, and actually in one case they responded saying the content was fine. Facebook ads seem to really be fairly lawless, I'm not convinced there's actually a human in the loop even after reporting.
Yeah, their article on the logistics of planning a concert tour for one of the most famous performers of the time but keeping it a secret sure does smell like outrage journo to me
Can you quote an exaggeration or something sensationalist from the article?
The article has details and examples of their own experience (and it's titled "my feed", not "instagram in general"), they interviewed researchers/experts on the topic, reached out to Meta for comment, waited to see what happened after doing so, etc.
i'm giving it more time, but I've had a tab open since it was mentioned here a couple of days ago. i've read some of their articles as time permits. keeping an eye on them for the time being to see if a trend develops that i will like
If a New York Times investigation was moderated off of Instagram and the illegal content they reported on was kept up, it's fair play for the NYT to talk about that.
There are so many comments on here that totally miss the point (talking about prescription drug ads when this is about advertising illegal drugs), I have to wonder if they are all bots.
The fact that yborg's comment below got flagged and immediately downvoted to death might be some proof of their claim that there might be some astroturfing going on even here.
I'm sure the admins are tracking the last 48-72 hours on HN and seeing evidence of your suggestion. It is a coordinated start on many sites and services. Timed for the energy build-up around the debate, the surrender, and even the Richmond song. It will take great discipline to keep communities from being leveled or downgraded over the next year.
A friend was abusing prescription drugs, and 100% of facebook and google ads he got were for exactly those drugs, biased towards time of day when he would relapse.
Also, oxycodone is still legal, and probably kills more than the illegal stuff mentioned in the article.
So, while the “this is obviously illegal behavior” is a nice smoking gun, it’s nothing compared to the legal stuff they do that should be illegal.
404's growth hackers making waves right out of the gate.
This media company was launched like a month ago and they're already taking the spotlight by doing censor-worthy or ban-worthy stuff.
Take notes. This is how it's done these days. You want attention? You want to grow your anything? Start fights, call names, and make sure you get kicked out, censored. It's like the Streisand Effect or something.
Speaking truth to power has always been a cornerstone of journalism, so I don't know that I would attribute this to growth hacking (although this is HN so I guess the startup distortion lens is always on).
They are writing and publishing compelling investigative content, I think that's why they are getting the traction they have (plus the team has a proven track record from previous work).
I suspect you are relatively young? Because this concentration of ownership of news and journalism into fewer and fewer hands is a new-ish thing, at least in the last few decades.
So on the timeline of journalism, it is not rare for this to happen, it's just increasingly rare in recent times. And I think a correction is coming, with for example this kind of more independent and self-funded projects.
It not a new thing. Ever heard of William Randolph Hearst, and Hearst Communications? He was the Murdoch of his day fucking with politics, fake news supporting far right leaders and everything.
Please tell me how far back into history we have to go until the majority of news consumed by people was not from an organization owned by someone wealthy.
Not Edison, but someone who asked to use his facility. I also believe this test was conducted less for shock & awe, and more for finding a way to quickly kill a death-row inmate. The previous attempts were inhumane, to say the least, and keep in mind there was considerable debate over the death penalty at the time. I would guess having a "no, this will kill the person quick" solution instead of a "well, it might maim them, or make them suffer a lot longer as they die" solution makes it easier to sell the death penalty to some of it's opposition. A 'cleaner death' is preferable, I'd imagine.
Just my two cents, though, but as we look back on these types of moments in history, it is easy to skew the accepted values of the time and write them off as barbaric.
DC will kill you also, but more in the "having a hot electric knife pushed into you" way instead of the "shakes you so fast you blackout and die" way that AC does.
104 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 175 ms ] threadEven direct marketing to physicians is somewhat questionable, except for the distribution of the results of clinical trials and peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the efficacy of drugs, and even these can suffer from conflict-of-interest if the research reports are being generated with funds from the pharmaceutical entity that will benefit from increased sales of those drugs.
Most countries ban social media / cable television / print media etc. advertisements of prescription-only drugs for these reasons.
I have a bridge to sell you.
I will say that from direct family and friends experience, a lot of family doctors are not aware of everything that's out there, particularly older doctors who may not be keeping up with new developments, and even more specifically women's health advancements..
Do your own research and find products or drugs that might work for you and then bring that to your doctor for a conversation about whether or not it could work for you.
That's where the marketing comes in for the public. Yes it works for the drug companies too, but if there was some law that meant no one could advertise or talk about these, we would be counting on our doctors to be always aware of all the newest things, and that's just not the reality.
If you sit around waiting for your doctor (who has hundreds, maybe thousands of patients) to bring all the right solutions to you, you're not going to get the best care you can.
So yeah, I agree there's challenges with marketing these products, but it's not a clear cut situation.
I feel like, as a computer professional, if someone came up to me and said "A really loud commercial told me that I need an app with AI and Blockchain in it! Can I pay you to write one for me?" I'd be... annoyed?
Some people do good research, some people do bad research. Generalize at your own risk I guess.
All I know is that when it comes to my own health, I don't leave things only in the hands of my doctor. If I can bring research or information - or even just questions about potential treatments I may have seen advertised - to the table about my own situation, why wouldn't I?
I absolutely trust their professional capacities, but I certainly don't assume they are able to give me dedicated attention or put in the research I can if there's something I need to sort out.
I know for a fact I am one of thousands of patients at my local clinic, so I am realistic about the level of care I receive. You may be in a better situation than me though.
MDMA is an interesting one because its far along in the official legalization path as a prescription drug but it doesn't fall into the decriminalization statues typically because it is synthetic (most of them make an exception for naturally derived psychedelics -- so even something very powerful like DMT is covered).
In practice, however, MDMA is widely available via the same channels as other psychedelics which are typically not the same distribution channels for much more habit forming and harm causing drugs like heroin, fentanyl, or cocaine.
Drugs are a complex and nuanced topic, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be pro drugs and also wary of how Instagram is vetting their drug advertisers.
Black market goods vary in quality and ethics and safety, it's absolutely reasonable to say, "ok, you advertise for these, how are you ensuring safety?"
Succinctly, it's okay to want to change the law, and also favor rule of law.
That just wreaks of alarmism, especially when they use less informed language like "silencer" instead of "suppressor". If there was something about it that is actually illegal they should mention it.
https://www.404media.co/instagram-ads-illegal-content-drugs-...
Like, yes, it's a magazine, but colloquially it's a clip. Pop culture has given these objects two names.
It's not a mark of failure to use the term most people are familiar with.
Calling a suppressor a "silencer" is just incorrect.
"Throw me a clip!" Or picking up "clips" of ammo in FPS games.
Yes, mag is becoming more common now, but clip was absolutely common.
This is precisely the point. Perhaps there is something illegal about these sales but why should I assume this is the case when the author incorrectly implies the existence of gun ads itself is illegal and use video game and movie terminology to talk about them?
"Full clip, do you wanna mess with this?" (Guru and Premier, 1999)
"I'm like two magazines fully-loaded to your one" (ibid.)
But that is not even remotely relevant to the topic. The original article don't even use the word "silencer", nor "suppressor", let alone "clip".
A lack of precision is only really a problem when it would cause confusion. In the context of the article, nobody is confused about what they mean by "silencer". A good example of this is that, even while complaining about calling them "silencers" rather than suppressors, the top comment still didn't have any confusion about what was being discussed.
People are confused as to believing the idea that any device which makes a gun silent exists.
Movie hackers don't work like that because nobody involved knows how computers work, even NCIS had dedicated Computer Consultants for that kind of stuff, but real "hacking" is boring AF, and most people are willing to put that kind of "reality" aside for a better narrative.
People know what a "silencer" is because that's what it's called in movies and TV. Much fewer people know that it's actually called a "suppressor".
Meet the audience where they are.
edit: If Tom's Hardware ran an article about a laptop that has 2TB of "memory", I'd be skeptical of their ability to give me the proper information. If I read an article about welfare that calls Medicaid "handouts", I'm going to realize they aren't being objective.
So no, you are incorrect.
Even if we didn’t, it’s a journalist’s job to inform. Using “clip” isn’t just a colloquialism — it refers to a different thing entirely, and is incorrect.
If they genuinely believe the public is not familiar with “magazine”, they can and should explain the terminology.
However, I sincerely doubt these individuals — especially given their Vice/Motherboard background — knew the correct terminology in the first place.
The last thing I want to do is contribute traffic to vapid outrage-bait Vice/Motherboard-style journalism, and HN has been spammed with their articles for days now.
It is, at the very least, a violation of Instagram’s terms. They don’t permit gun sales on any Meta platform.
Edit: Looks pretty real. He posts vids from his customers showing successful deliveries. Appears to be operating out of Toronto? Maybe one day the cops will figure out how to use a computer and do some actual detective work.
Here's an ad for a Bitcoin doubling scam, complete with "Tesler" instead of "Tesla", and including a pic of Elon Musk: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=308770845058112
Plenty of other scams are freely advertised as well: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/16/crypto-sc...
The article has details and examples of their own experience (and it's titled "my feed", not "instagram in general"), they interviewed researchers/experts on the topic, reached out to Meta for comment, waited to see what happened after doing so, etc.
In the about us section they state their reporting is “exploring the ways technology is shaping–and is shaped by–our world.”
I’d say this reporting falls squarely in those crosshairs.
If you suspect a shill or astroturfing, send an email to dang so he can investigate and actually do something if it is happening.
Also, oxycodone is still legal, and probably kills more than the illegal stuff mentioned in the article.
So, while the “this is obviously illegal behavior” is a nice smoking gun, it’s nothing compared to the legal stuff they do that should be illegal.
This media company was launched like a month ago and they're already taking the spotlight by doing censor-worthy or ban-worthy stuff.
Take notes. This is how it's done these days. You want attention? You want to grow your anything? Start fights, call names, and make sure you get kicked out, censored. It's like the Streisand Effect or something.
They are writing and publishing compelling investigative content, I think that's why they are getting the traction they have (plus the team has a proven track record from previous work).
So on the timeline of journalism, it is not rare for this to happen, it's just increasingly rare in recent times. And I think a correction is coming, with for example this kind of more independent and self-funded projects.
Hint: it’s before the printing press
As I did say, it has been getting worse and more concentrated in the last few decades.
And I guess combined with the loss of commercial viability of local news due to the Internet, a point I didn't include but is certainly relevant.
Edison literally electrocuted a horse with AC to promote it as a preferred power source for electric chairs[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents#Associatin...
Just my two cents, though, but as we look back on these types of moments in history, it is easy to skew the accepted values of the time and write them off as barbaric.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...