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

191–200 of 353 posts

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

#191

Post by skookumchuck »

gcb0 wrote: post #88
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.

money isn't speech but the courts that ultimately decide this in the USA are directly appointed by someone who got elected using money instead of speech.

There are many elections in the US, including the last Presidential one, where the winner spent nowhere near as much as the loser.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

Clinton spent nearly double what Trump did.

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

#192

Post by skookumchuck »

foolfoolz wrote: post #36
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…

+1. i know government TV channels have scary connotations, but i’d rather see a website or tv channel or radio set up where each candidate gets a bunch, but equal number, of campaign ads. play them on repeat all day for free. and remove paid political ads from all other sources

Who decides who gets to be a candidate?

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

#193

Post by nradov »

ekianjo wrote: post #167
Retra wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Supreme Court absolutely does legislate from the bench. For example, regardless of how one feels about abortion rights, the famous Roe v. Wade case essentially invented a new law with no explicit Constitutional foundation.

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

#194

Post by eftychis »

ekianjo wrote: post #167
Retra wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, the U.S. follows the Common Law system in contrast with the majority of other countries (most of E.U. follows Civil Law). In that system the justice system participates in the shaping of law as it acts as an interpreter of the law and establishes precedent (you might have heard the term case law also [0]). Thus, as you are well aware, law is developed by their decisions and interpretations of the Supreme Court, and other lower courts. For instance, Arizona v. Gant, Roe v. Wade. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

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

#195

Post by Dylan16807 »

k_sh wrote: post #182
pessimizer wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why is insider trading a different category than other forms of speech? The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is. This works in a similar manner to bomb-making plans being legal to disseminate, but making a bomb being very illegal. > Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech? This is solicitation to commit a crime, which is a specifi…

> The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is.

The act of paying for something. That's not a very helpful distinction to make when the proposal is not being able to pay for certain ads.

> This is a false statement of fact, which is a specific exception to the 1A.

Political ads are deceptive all the time.

And what does "specific exception" mean? Specified by what?

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

#196

Post by jsonne »

coffeemug wrote: post #165
manigandham wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Depending on the state you're in it is, in fact, illegal to fire someone for their political views and is a protected class of sorts. (To varying degrees)

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

#197

Post by ddingus »

mmmBacon wrote: post #186
coffeemug wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

The US Constitution also codifies freedom of association so you can have free speech but you can’t force me to associate with you. In the US companies have freedom of association as long as they don’t violate a protected class ( race, religion, sex, age, national origin, etc...). Since you the government can’t force a company to associate with someone they disagree with, you can be fired for things you say.

As it should be.

There is no shield in the first Amendment.

Just because it is legal to say does not mean it should be said.

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

#198

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

Banning political ads is not some neutral rule. It primarily favors incumbents and the status quo.

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

#199

Post by cle »

manigandham wrote: post #140
cle wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How do you communicate to millions of people then? What is your strategy? Visit every single person's home?

Do you not recognize the irony of asking this question on Hacker News? And for an additional layer of irony, Hacker News doesn't advertise either (that I'm aware of).

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

#200

Post by cle »

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.

This is orthogonal to my point. I'm just surprised (disappointed?) at how some people think it's so inconceivable to communicate without advertisements.
Post reply on HN