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

Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 218 posts

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#191

Post by dragonwriter »

pjc50 wrote: post #164
HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. It's really hard to imagine what a Hilary Clinton presidency would have been like. She might have been impeached at this point. Likewise, it's really hard to tell what the long term effects of Brexit will be. I think history will be in a better position to judge it 10 years down the line. But I really think people need to get over both results. It's been two years now. The remoaners are much worse than…

> She might have been impeached at this point Why? > need to get over both results The results deliver real harm to real people. The separated immigrant children are probably never going to get over it, for example. And I'm not going to get over a result while I'm still worrying about stockpiling food. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexi... > Imagine if between 2008-2016 HN had been full of o…

> > She might have been impeached at this point

> Why?

Well, Republicans, including some in prominent roles, in the House just started trying to impeach the Trump-appointed, Republican Deputy Attorney General for not compromising a series of criminal investigations, so with a small shift in votes giving the same Congress but a Democratic President, just about anything.

But conviction in the Senate would be less likely, because that takes more than a bare majority.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#192

Post by fareesh »

untog wrote: post #93
fareesh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice is about equality before the law. It is unjust for one party to do something and be punished, while another party does something that is principly the same, and is not punished. Citing "whataboutism" does not make this go away, it is the essence of the argument. If Joe is disqualified from his hockey tournament for throwing his stick, but Mike receives an eye-roll from the same referee, it should not be criti…

The situation you just described is one where two people do the same thing, one is punished and one is not. Justifiable to question that. The situation the OP was describing compared illegal, unreported campaign overspending with a foreign politician expressing an opinion. They're not in any way similar.

The reason I used the word principly is because they are the same thing in principle, the current law is insufficient to treat the issue appropriately, which is what makes it unjust.

A foreign politician who is popular will generate free advertising showcasing the merits of his endorsed position through news media coverage of his statements.

Take money out of the equation entirely. I am a rich filthy corrupt CEO who owns a giant media corporation. I contribute 0 dollars to your campaign, but my TV channel has reporters singing your praises daily. My newspapers write about you in positive terms. My interns spend time on social media defending you from critics.

Everything I have done for you has helped get you elected. My news channel and publications are read by millions. You now owe me.

Similarly, a politician from another place who is very popular in your constituency shows up and campaigns for you. You pay nothing for it, but thousands show up to listen to him. His speech is aired to millions in your constituency.

Eventually you are elected, now you owe him.

Not accounting for some money is principly the same as not accounting for an endorsement by the President of the United States. The same negative outcomes that are associated with money in politics can be applied to endorsements too.

Existing laws do not address this, and are thus unjust because they are outdated in the context of how news and discourse works in 2018

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#193

Post by riquito »

tathougies wrote: post #188
Symbiote wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, and they would risk deportation in Turkey, the UK, or whatever EU state they reside in until discovered. The other countries tend to check residence before allowing a job, healthcare or similar.

Why would they risk deportation if they legally entered turkey?

They wouldn't, somehow the parent must have thought about illegal immigrants, or felons

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#194

Post by mcintyre1994 »

noncoml wrote: post #42
RubenSandwich wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, quite a few of these are very xenophobic. Very much playing off of an anti Middle East sentiment. I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this document: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu... . 2924.jpg 2966.jpg 2968.jpg

They do know that UK could have vetoed the entrance of Turkey, Macedonia, etc in EU...

They were ridiculously early in the process and even if he'd stayed PM as long as he wanted I doubt it'd have been Cameron who eventually made that decision. But it'd have been damaging for a British PM to say they'd veto them even if they did everything required to join, so he was really stuck dodging the question when asked if he would.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#195

Post by hcknwscommenter »

tathougies wrote: post #91
matthewmacleod wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a “fair democratic vote”? Is it still fair if it’s a simple majority? Is it still fair if official campaigns break the law? Is it still fair if constituent nations’ views are disregarded? That concept is a hard one to define and precisely why it’s a bad idea to have simple majority referendums on complex technical matters.

I mean in a direct democracy, a simple majority of a quorum of voters typically counts. Establishing arbitrary criteria for which votes are valid is not a democracy, especially when the various criteria are suddenly proposed after a controversial election.

A vote result arising in the context of a great many voters having been persuaded by a sophisticated propaganda attack consisting of lies, misrepresentations, and half-truths, where the attack originated from a foreign power aiming to create chaos and confusion among its enemies is not a fair vote and should not be given the legitimacy that a fair vote deserves.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#196

Post by lostlogin »

tomp wrote: post #141
lostlogin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democratic yes, but ludicrous. Setting up something as critical as that to have such a slim majority decide is illogical. The U.K. doesn’t seem to get referendums. Important note however - they didn’t have a referendum to join the EU but maybe that’s covered by the one on joining the European Communities?

> Setting up something as critical as that to have such a slim majority decide is illogical So you'd rather have a slim minority decide?

That’s not the only other option.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#197

Post by lostlogin »

tomp wrote: post #129
lostlogin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate. There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten “I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly,…

> I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. Which position would you consider the "default"? Slavery? Prohibition on gay marriage? Ban on abortion? (All of these were "changed" through history, some very recently.)

It goes both ways, are you happy for those to pass into law with a simple majority?

None of those were referendums where I live, were any of them referendums where you live?

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#198

Post by [deleted] »

timthorn wrote: post #72
DanBC wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have received criminal convictions because of the way the campaigns were run. ICO, the UK data protection regulator, has fined groups of both sides for data protection violations. We have strict laws about the ways elections are run for a reason, and yes, lying about funding is immoral, and is incompatible with Nolan Principles for Public Office.

Careful - the Electoral Commission has made its judgement but as of now the files are with the police/CPS. At this point I don't believe there have been any criminal convictions?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#199

Post by repolfx »

noncoml wrote: post #135
WillPostForFood wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext May be xenophobic, but the ads are specifically about the wage gap between the UK and Turkey/Albania, and the explicit message is that you will lose your job, or wages will drop. That’s not xenophobic.

> you will lose your job, or wages will drop Which didn’t happen in any country so far nor in UK with the “invasion of the Polish” Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro population is negligible. Turkey will never get in EU. I respect the choice of the English people but the ads were pure scaremongering

I watched some vox pops on the Guardian during the campaign and there were quite a few testimonies from workers who stated specifically their wages had dropped due to competition from eastern European workers and in one case the guy could name the exact amount of the drop.

So whilst you may believe nobody felt under wage pressure, that would be a rather odd belief given the basics of supply and demand, and it wouldn't match the beliefs of quite a few voters.

Re: Facebook finally hands over leave campaign Brexit ads

#200

Post by Symbiote »

riquito wrote: post #193
tathougies wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they risk deportation if they legally entered turkey?

They wouldn't, somehow the parent must have thought about illegal immigrants, or felons

I was still thinking in the context, several comments up, of

> I mean... britain wouldn't be the ones policing the border, it would be turkey.

Post reply on HN