91–100 of 353 posts
People need to think very carefully about the consequences of any policy they propose to curb this sort of behavior. Do we really want Facebook making judgment calls about the content of political ads? Do they need to do thorough real-life identity verification of people buying any ads, or any ads that may be construed as political? Then the real kicker: does every ad provider need to do this, or just the ones that a…
"In announcing new transparency efforts or tools to combat foreign influence, Facebook included a caveat. “These changes will not prevent abuse entirely. We’re up against smart, creative and well-funded adversaries who change their tactics as we spot abuse,” Leathern wrote. But we believe that they will help prevent future interference in elections on Facebook. And it is why they are so important.” But posing as 100…
Triple ouch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraud is already a crime. And in most cases, prosecution comes after a crime is committed. Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's a good idea for them to do it, it's a bad idea to use threat of force (government) to do. In the end, I do know several third party candidates that had a lot of trouble posting genuine ads... so there's a bit of a problem all around.
> Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's worked pretty well for discriminatory housing ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fine, but it depends on the value of you in "You can't say you're a senator." Is Vice liable for fraud here? Facebook? And don't forget, the OP is responding to GP proposing simply banning political ads on Facebook altogether, not simply fraudulent ones.
Fraud is already a crime. And in most cases, prosecution comes after a crime is committed. Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's a good idea for them to do it, it's a bad idea to use threat of force (government) to do. In the end, I do know several third party candidates that had a lot of trouble posting genuine ads... so there's a bit of a problem all around.
The financial industry as well as many others say hi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how it's done in my country, France: candidates can't pay for political ads. They have equally-sized and free-to-use billboards in front of public buildings [0] and a free one-minute-and-a-half-per-day ad space on public television [1]. That's it. [0] http://dspagnou.celeonet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/degra... [1] For fun, the 2017 ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__Il8Z7lrg
Can they pay for their own website? What about a website about their ideas? What about linking to that website? Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian. It's sure great for established players though as they are already known and get a lot of air time anyway while the competition can't even pay to try to convince others to their ideas.
This oft repeated refrain r.e. more restrictive speech laws is something that I don't really understand. You can look at Europe or Canada and see that they are no dystopias, compared to the United States. There are ways they are better and ways they are worse, but there is no consensus that either is a significantly worse place to live than the USA.
Unpopular opinion: who cares? I think the business is gross, and I have not had a Facebook account for 10 years. If you disapprove of it, just don't use it. Complaining about Facebook's actions is like complaining about sugar being unhealthy. Don't force sugar to change its molecular composition, just stop eating it.
The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…
I think it should go further - ban all political ads, period. They do more harm than good, are mostly designed to confuse and obscure the topics and/or candidate(s). Instead of ads have the politicians debate on live TV to express their political views. Post the debates online for everyone to watch at their leisure. Leave the measures/proposals to us to research; in Colorado we get an excellent voter guide that clear…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can they pay for their own website? What about a website about their ideas? What about linking to that website? Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian. It's sure great for established players though as they are already known and get a lot of air time anyway while the competition can't even pay to try to convince others to their ideas.
They can have their own website, but only promoted through organic means. > Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian Europe, with its vastly different past, has a very different view on free speech compared to the US. We don't allow unlimited free speech, but we don't view that as censorship. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. Hate speech is condemned through most of Europe (one of our far-right politicians in Fra…
The question then is...should YOU be the one to decide what is "better"? Who should be given that kind of power?
In an ideal world, a benevolent philosopher king would have that power. In the real world, maybe it's best no one has it.
Maybe it's better to cast the ring into the fire.