51–60 of 83 posts
The press is really kicking Facebook's ass lately. I guess it's because it's newsworty now and gets clicks? Because, I don't think Facebook was any better 1-2 years ago, but you hardly ever heard about it in this light.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-...
What I’m trying to understand is if the average reader thinks these methods are bad in general, or just bad when the “wrong” person uses them well?
Political advertising is actually important - we want issue focused ads helping communicate candidates stated positions on hot button issues. And yes, we even want the hit jobs when behavior warrants it and should be highlighted.
Is “influence elections” supposed to be a scary way of saying getting your word out? If the ads were lies, report them to the FTC or FEC. If the ads were effective, isn’t that the whole fucking point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European I'm surprised. In my country, every form of political advertising, TV or online, is strictly regulated.
That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital. What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European I'm surprised. In my country, every form of political advertising, TV or online, is strictly regulated.
That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital. What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're just doing their job. It's company leadership that should be ashamed.
Some people don't believe folks are let off the hook because they are "just following orders." Other people believe that following orders lets people off the hook. We see this over and over again in every discussion about corporate malfeasance (not to mention war). It appears you're of the latter mindset while the parent is of the former. Consider not down voting what amounts to a legitimate philosophical difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't care, doesn't mean you SHOULD not care. Public apathy from smart people was probably behind what happened in 1930s Germany.
What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentment. Germans felt treated badly after WWI, the war contributions were extremely high, people were starving, inflation was higher than in Venezuela today. These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. Apathy? No, many German smart people were in favor of chang…
The NSDAP promised law and order, and to improve the economy.
Just a few years ago, the talking heads were fawning over a few politicians you might know, who claimed their social media strategy was the linchpin in winning the election. Political campaigns of a certain bend would brag about how rich their voter targeting data was and how much more effective they were with their advertising dollars online. What I’m trying to understand is if the average reader thinks these method…
2) Political advertising is beneficial to democracy only if it improves voter's ability to vote in an informed way, which might not be the case.
3) If all competitive candidates require huge advertising budgets, that limits who can run and makes them beholden to sponsors.
4) The particular concern here is the lack of transparency. However much advertising helps inform voters, if voters are also able to understand what advertising strategies are being used they will be more informed. Social media seems particularly opaque with regards to what has been paid for, manipulated or occurred organically.
The press is really kicking Facebook's ass lately. I guess it's because it's newsworty now and gets clicks? Because, I don't think Facebook was any better 1-2 years ago, but you hardly ever heard about it in this light.
More than that, the traditional press hates Facebook because Facebook is stealing its business. I thought Wired ran a good story about it [1]. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-...
Just a few years ago, the talking heads were fawning over a few politicians you might know, who claimed their social media strategy was the linchpin in winning the election. Political campaigns of a certain bend would brag about how rich their voter targeting data was and how much more effective they were with their advertising dollars online. What I’m trying to understand is if the average reader thinks these method…
1) Yes, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in commentators lauding the sophistication of the Obama campaign machine and then complaining about the Republican strategy. At the same time, some of the most celebrated aspects of the Obama campaign were not about social media. This is not (or should not be) treated as a partisan issue. 2) Political advertising is beneficial to democracy only if it improves voter's abi…
The complaints are generally with respect to a targeted effort to direct people towards sites publishing outright false information[0] as propaganda, and doing so by coordinating with a foreign government.
There is no such claim about the Obama campaign machine - certainly that's not what people laud when they talk about it.
[0] Not misleading or biased, but completely false - as false as the headline "Humans Land On Mars", or "Moon Landing Revealed to be Hoax" would be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't say much. It's regulated in the US too, including digital. What matters (and what is different) is what the specific regulations are.
In practice, Citizens United obviated any US regulations on political advertising. A rich patron can pour as much money as s/he desires into advertising on behalf of a campaign, and we don't have a right to know who that person is.
No, Citizens United didn't do that. That right always existed. If you're a billionaire, you always could purchase TV ads that feature (for example) you talking about how great Candidate Foo is, and why Candidate Foo will be the best thing since sliced bread. That is a fundamental right of free speech in our democracy - the government cannot restrict you from praising or criticizing a candidate. They can restrict you from coordinating with the candidate to make those statements, but they can't restrict you from your own independent speech.
The Citizens United decision ruled that people preserve this right when acting as a group. So instead of one single billionaire purchasing ad spots, a group of people could pool their money and purchase the ad time instead. Or they could launch a crowdfunding campaign. All of that is still perfectly legal as long as the person (or people) running the ads aren't coordinating their efforts with the candidate and the candidate's campaign.