We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by vmlinuz » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:28 AM UTC

lozaning wrote: post #130

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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.

>It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. This is a laughable claim once one considers blasphemy laws that still exist in many western democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447 - Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments [2017]

Not the greatest example, to be honest, since:

a) the very article you linked states "...no publicised cases of blasphemy have been brought before the courts since the law was introduced in 2009 and a source said it was "highly unlikely" that a prosecution against Fry would take place." - and indeed, the case was dropped after an investigation found, effectively, that not enough people were offended to be worth proceeding...

and b) earlier this week "voters overwhelming[ly] supported a referendum to remove [blasphemy] as an offence in Irish law." [0]

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46010077

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

#162

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:40 AM UTC

esturk wrote: post #150

softwaredoug wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by azernik » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:40 AM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #93

azernik wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's worked pretty well for discriminatory housing ads.

How so? Is craigslist required to pre-screen housing ads? I don't think so. The ads themselves are illegal, but there's no legal requirement to pre-screen that I'm aware of.

Online outlets have a specific exemption for user-created content (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legal); print outlets do, indeed, have to pre-screen ads and that's worked very well.

Even for tech companies, that exemption is limited; Craigslist got an exemption, but Roommates.com didn't because of the level to which its platform actively encouraged discriminating on prohibited categories.

Facebook is even now being pursued by HUD over its own tools allowing housing ads to be targeted by race, gender, ZIP code, or disability. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/19/640002304/hud-hits-facebook-f...

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

#164

Post by JabavuAdams » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:40 AM UTC

thejerz wrote: post #72

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…

America has a 1st amendment which protects free speech. Implicit in that covenant is the responsibility on the recipient, not the transmitter, to determine truthfulness. If you care whether Mike Pence actually paid for that ad, go research it -- and if you can't, don't rely on it being true.

This covenant is based on an outdated and incorrect model of how the brain works. You are largely not in control of your responses. You do things because you want to do them but why do you want what you want?

Advertising works. Propaganda works. If they cause social ills, it's valid to discuss how to avoid those ills.

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

#165

Post by coffeemug » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:43 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #144

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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 c…

> Professionally "banned" is not a free speech issue in the slightest.

This line of reasoning never made sense to me. Free speech is both a legal and a cultural issue. A modern society cannot credibly claim to be free on legal grounds alone. Yeah, the government won't put me in prison or fine me, but if I get fired for being a staunch liberal (or conservative) then I'm not really free, am I? This doesn't just apply to rich athletes -- in most organizations in SF I would not feel particularly safe expressing what seem to me fairly moderate views.

Depriving people of their livelihood for expressing political views is absolutely a free speech issue. Perhaps not in a legal/constitutional sense, but a cultural sense for sure. There were plenty of stretches in the Soviet Union where they wouldn't imprison you, but would fire you for a poorly timed political joke. Starting down that cultural slope is a really bad idea.

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

#166

Post by elteto » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #144

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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 c…

Indeed. The EU and other Western democracies are far, far ahead of the US in many aspects, like health care, but free speech is absolutely not one of them. This just happened: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedo.... You'd be laughed out of court in the US for something like this, if you manage to find a lawyer to represent you.

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

#167

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

Retra wrote: post #153

ekianjo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europeans have bureaucrats in Brussels who are not elected by anyone. Thats way worse than allowing some dose of political advertising, as a whole. As for Freedom of Speech, several European countries have actually very specific limitations on what one can say, while such restrictions are way lower in the US. Plus, the US has a strong constitution on that matter, while in Europe depending on the country it is certain…

There are many positions in the US that are not elected positions. When's the last time you voted for a supreme court justice?

Bureaucrats make laws in Europe. The Supreme court does not. Big difference.

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

#168

Post by elteto » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:45 AM UTC

lozaning wrote: post #130

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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.

>It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. This is a laughable claim once one considers blasphemy laws that still exist in many western democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447 - Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments [2017]

And this just happened: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedo...

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

#169

Post by dymk » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:49 AM UTC

amichal wrote: post #98

I am appalled at how bad Facebook did here but buried at the very end of the article Vice does indicate that they needed to provide a valid traceable drivers license and last four of a (maybe?) matching SSN. This means that had they intended to actually publish the ads they would have put some real person on the hook (assuming the submitted data is actually checked against something). Still too easy but for the first…

Weird how Vice would run such an intentionally misleading article, isn't it?

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

#170

Post by pessimizer » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:50 AM UTC

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.

Why is insider trading a different category than other forms of speech?

Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech?

Why are intentionally deceptive drug advertisements a different category than other forms of speech?

Why is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something a different category than other types of speech?

I'm going to claim that it's because these forms of speech enable types of coordination and coercion that corrupt processes and structures that we deem essential for the operation of society. So, pragmatic reasons.

Placing limits on the payments, direct or indirect (a dollar I spend is a dollar a candidate doesn't have to spend), that can be made to aid people in gaining a position that places them in charge of allocating public resources, that's something that very few people seriously argue against. What they argue about is what those limits should be.

You can make an argument that payments to candidates and government officials should be allowed, but making absolutist arguments that something is speech and therefore must be permitted isn't serious. Payments to a television station to run an ad that you financed the production of is surely less worthy of being called speech than calling in a bomb threat is - at least the bomb threat is using your mouth to say a thing. Speech, instead, is what we define to be speech. If it's to encompass all expression, you might as well call selling cigarettes without a tax stamp speech.