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

We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

news.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 353 posts

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#141

Post by [deleted] »

matthewowen wrote: post #87
na85 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.

This is a tiresome argument. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press (ie, the printing press). The clear aim is to guarantee not just the right to speech, but also the right to _distribute_ that speech. In fact, without that the right to freedom of speech is of limited value. This doesn't mean Facebook couldn't ban political ads, but it does mean it would be unreasonable for the government to do so.

[deleted]

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#142

Post by IncRnd »

wyattpeak wrote: post #115
chrismanfrank wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment. 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.

This sort of argument is the ultimate dead end. Shall we have no legislation on anything which isn't universally considered beneficial? Besides which, choosing no legislation is a choice in itself. Having no law on speech isn't a middle-ground, it's an extreme. It's an understandable extreme, and though I disagree with it in limited fashion I don't think it's an unreasonable case to make. But it is nevertheless not t…

This sort of argument is not a dead end but the very essence of government. Asking how much power should be given to a government is vitally important to the citizens and is certainly not a dead end.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#144

Post by manigandham »

TomMckenny wrote: post #89
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

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.

Absolutely not. Advertising is not bribery and the European region is nowhere near the freedom of speech principles of the US. It may feel the same, either because you have never said anything or have never been heard by anyone who cares, but there are countless examples of prosecution that would be summarily dismissed here in the States.

Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest. Athletes can do whatever they want, however they are still employees and if they want to enjoy their multi-million dollar salaries then they will need to follow the rules of their employer and the sports leagues. You will not be punished by the government for what you say, but you are not entitled to a job without consequences either.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#145

Post by rickycook »

shard972 wrote: post #125
hadrien01 wrote: post #33

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…

The best solution is to pass an amendment to the constitution to adjust free speech exceptions? If thats the best solution, I don't think i want to know what the worse one is...

yeah! because changing a document that was written hundreds of years ago to suit the highly changing landscape that is human society is a terrible idea........

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#146

Post by olalonde »

hadrien01 wrote: post #33

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…

Aren't there already laws against false advertising? That's the real issue here...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#147

Post by YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 »

hadrien01 wrote: post #67
bluecalm wrote: post #51

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…

>We don't allow unlimited free speech, but we don't view that as censorship.

Speak for yourself. I certainly think blasphemy laws are certainly way past their due date, and more extreme restrictions (e.g. like in Germany, but notably not everywhere in Europe) definitely at least borderline on the dystopian side.

And as to what an average citizen might think: perhaps an average Chinese considers their “free speech” laws, or their closest equivalent, quite reasonable after having been taught so all their life. Europe could certainly do with freer speech.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#148

Post by eridius »

andrewflnr wrote: post #27
josefresco wrote: post #5

"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…

That's probably one of the only people they could actually be sure wasn't buying Facebook ads. Whereas a senator buying Facebook ads is, in itself, quite likely. Not really a fair comparison.

So what you're saying is, because a senator could conceivably be running ads, then any ad that claims to be by a senator should be approved without scrutiny?

Besides being preposterous, that same argument applies to literally anybody in the world except, I guess, Mark Zuckerberg.

So it sounds like Facebook's algorithm for detecting abuse is `if submitter == "Mark Zuckerberg" { reject(); }`

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#149

Post by wyattpeak »

IncRnd wrote: post #142
wyattpeak wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of argument is the ultimate dead end. Shall we have no legislation on anything which isn't universally considered beneficial? Besides which, choosing no legislation is a choice in itself. Having no law on speech isn't a middle-ground, it's an extreme. It's an understandable extreme, and though I disagree with it in limited fashion I don't think it's an unreasonable case to make. But it is nevertheless not t…

This sort of argument is not a dead end but the very essence of government. Asking how much power should be given to a government is vitally important to the citizens and is certainly not a dead end.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that speech legislation should be debated. I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that, since there is no consensus, it's best that there is no legislation at all.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#150

Post by esturk »

softwaredoug wrote: post #123
cle wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a serious comment? How do we communicate without advertisements? This is depressing.

Why is political speech a different category than other forms of speech? Think of the plausible scenario of a certain Presidents FEC deciding friendly speech isn’t “political” (it’s “patriotic”!) But critical speech is clearly political and should be regulated.

Thanks. Your above says advertisement, you said speech. Thats a big difference. Advertisement can be regulated which is the focus of this thread. No one is saying to regulate some speech in a rally but is said speech is reshape as some advertisment then they should be regulated.
Post reply on HN