Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 213 posts

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#171

Post by s73v3r_ »

rhino369 wrote: post #46
s73v3r_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.

Would you shut down the Washington Post? Or is Jeff Bezos allowed to buy a newspaper? Why is Anderson Cooper allowed to spread his opinions with the aid of a multi hundred million dollar distribution system but I can’t buy 2000 dollars of Facebook ads? Limits on funding speech are limits on speech.

"Limits on funding speech are limits on speech."

I entirely disagree. Everyone has the same amount that they can give. Everyone has exactly the same rights.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#172

Post by tokyodude »

Retric wrote: post #161
Lazare wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is not speech, and courts do not treat it as such. The most famous recent case, Citizens United didn't even flirt with the notion. (Despite much commentary to the contrary, apparently from people who didn't read the decision.) Money does, however, enable speech, and restrictions on things which enable us to exercise fundamental rights is at least potentially a restriction on that right. That's the framework the…

Money forces people to listen which is inherently very different from speech. And there are plenty of laws limiting speech for example in schools. So, outright limiting say TV advertising would be completely constitutional and have the side effect of limiting exactly the types of speech you're talking about without constitutional issues.

I hope this isn't considered devolving the thread but that episode of Radiolab mentioned above certainly made it seem, to me, the issue was about censoring movie makers.

If you're on the left you more likely than not like Michael Moore movies. They are often very political. Should they be banned? That was the topic that came up in Radiolab.

Citizens United, inspired by Michael Moore's movies, decided they wanted to do the same thing. Someone decided Citizens United didn't have the same rights to release movies with a political message as Michael Moore and the studios that funded and distributed his movies. The Supreme Court I think saw the problem. Where does it end? Is Transformers political speech? Is Sense8 political speech? Is Milk?

I don't know how to solve the issue of getting money out of politics but I can at least see the argument that deciding which movies are political and which are not is not as easy as it sounds. Maybe Michael Moore's movie should have been prevented from release within N months before the election? I think that was the actual law used to prevent Citizen's United's movie coming out even though Moore's came out within the same type of time frame before an election.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#173

Post by [deleted] »

tokyodude wrote: post #172
Retric wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money forces people to listen which is inherently very different from speech. And there are plenty of laws limiting speech for example in schools. So, outright limiting say TV advertising would be completely constitutional and have the side effect of limiting exactly the types of speech you're talking about without constitutional issues.

I hope this isn't considered devolving the thread but that episode of Radiolab mentioned above certainly made it seem, to me, the issue was about censoring movie makers. If you're on the left you more likely than not like Michael Moore movies. They are often very political. Should they be banned? That was the topic that came up in Radiolab. Citizens United, inspired by Michael Moore's movies, decided they wanted to d…

[deleted]

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#174

Post by 0xffff2 »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #163
chrismcb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you don't register, your free speech is abridged. The first amendment doesn't say you have to register before you are given free speech.

You also can't hand out legal or medical advice without being registered. Is that a violation of free speech?

You can't? There's literally a subreddit called "legaladvice". Someone should tell them.

You can't claim to be an attorney or a doctor if you're not one, but as far as I know that's the limit of any restrictions.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#175

Post by extralego »

brownbat wrote: post #96
confounded wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But relatedly, money being treated as speech is antithetical to a functioning republic democracy.

Citizens United discussions are a bit of a flamewar trap. So if you're reading this, instead of down voting everyone on the other side or yelling about democracy in a reply, I'd just urge you to leave this site of random pseudo anonymous opinions, and maybe go somewhere else to learn a little about the case instead. Radiolab's More Perfect does a great job of providing the backstory: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story…

The Radiolab episode is good, I agree, but they take some grand leaps of faith to accomplish covering ‘both sides’.

I think the problem is that this isn’t a philosophical question. It’s an ethical one. But, the only way to be ‘fair and balanced’ is to purport it as philosophical.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#176

Post by didibus »

Lazare wrote: post #95
confounded wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But relatedly, money being treated as speech is antithetical to a functioning republic democracy.

Money is not speech, and courts do not treat it as such. The most famous recent case, Citizens United didn't even flirt with the notion. (Despite much commentary to the contrary, apparently from people who didn't read the decision.) Money does, however, enable speech, and restrictions on things which enable us to exercise fundamental rights is at least potentially a restriction on that right. That's the framework the…

That's an interesting frame. And I think it works out given a pretty fair playing ground.

The whole point of free speech is to prevent single origin messages. To promote more ideas and perspectives. And prevent people from shutting up opposite views.

But the constitution isn't perfect. Its hard to make sure your hard rules will work for all context.

I think in this case, there's a fear that now that money is getting more and more disproportionate and concentrated into a single origin. The power to speak will follow into that same disproportionate single origin.

Maybe free speech still enables all to speak, but the uneven distribution of money causes some to speak much louder. So the question is, could this be detrimental to democracy? Is it possible it hurts our political ability to focus on what trully matters to most and to come up with the best ideas on how to effectively get it?

I don't know, its hard to say. Maybe we need some simulations. But if it were true, then clearly something should be done to address this loophole. Forcing transparency into who spent the money is one possible solution. Maybe you could cap out money each one can spend to speak. There's probably other ways also.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#177

Post by mulmen »

anameaname wrote: post #137
mulmen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? They’re still responsible for complying with the law.

Following the law isn't black and white. I'm sure each of us as individuals broke the several times today without even knowing it.

"Some people speed" is not an excuse for violating arbitrary laws, including speed limits.

Google is still responsible for their actions, just like you and me.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#178

Post by mulmen »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #166
chasontherobot wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A chilling effect on running an ad service, maybe. Following the law is a cost of doing business.

A specific sales tax on newspapers is also cost of doing business. But it is unconstitutional. Making the law really complicated so that it's expensive to follow is the same thing. How can I make an online community and sell ads profitable (like some people I know that ran profitable forums) if I have to vet ads and follow laws of fifty states? The result of such laws being enforced is, these online communities cease…

The same law Google is accused of not following also applies to newspapers. Are you saying the law is unconstitutional? Is it still ethical for Google to not comply with a law because they believe it is unconstitutional? If this is the case why has Google not offered this defense? Is this a viable defense for breaking other laws?

It looks to me like Google knew what they were doing, knew what the penalties could be and decided it was worth it.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#179

Post by [deleted] »

specialist wrote: post #159
wildmusings wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all great, but if your ideas are anathema to what the major political forces want, then it’s not going to work. Sometimes you have to take your case to the people.

Dude. I feel like you need a bro hug more than advice. Don't despair. My friends work on and have milestone achievements on marijuana legalization, marriage equality, campaign financing, DREAM ACT, family leave, increasing the minimum wage, etc, etc. The biggest impact any of us can have is on the local level. The cliche is that states are incubators of democracy. Well, cities are the incubators of states. While the…

[deleted]

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#180

Post by smsm42 »

wpietri wrote: post #153
smsm42 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year Limit on what? On speaking about politics? On buying ads? On paying people to write about politics? On hiring consultants to develop advertising strategies? On speaking about anything government cares about? So if NYT spends $1000 per subscriber on politicial writer's salaries in March, it has to be shut down until the next January because it's over the political speech…

Hi, let me introduce you to this new thing called the Internet, which lets everybody publish their speech for free. You should try it sometime. (And clearly they mean a limit on political contributions, which is something that many countries do successfully. Ours used to be one of them. I hope you're not as ignorant on the topic as your hysterical straw man suggests, but if you are I'd suggest a little reading. E.g.…

> which lets everybody publish their speech for free

The fact that you can write stuff on internet forums for free doesn't mean it is free. It means somebody else is paying for it - for example, in exchange for showing you ads (which the advertiser - surprise! - pays for), selling your personal data or sometimes just out of charitable spirit. However, if you need to do a massive communication effort, it is not nearly free. And if you have ever built a campaign site (I have) you know it is nowhere near "free". Your resume shows you participated in multiple internet projects, so I am astonished how you can condescendingly claim it's "free" while knowing full well from your own experience it is nowhere near that. Unless, of course, you want to confine your campaign to /r/irrelevant.

Post reply on HN