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

271–280 of 353 posts

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

#271

Post by specialist »

avar wrote: post #257
specialist wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe, but cannot prove, that we (society) could largely achieve the same ends without violating the First Amendment: 1) Switch from winner-takes-all to approval voting. Largely eliminates negative campaigning. Counteracts drive to partisanship. 2) Restore Fairness Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine 3) Publicly financed campaigns Greatly reduce effectiveness of pay to play strategy.

There's no way to restore the fairness doctrine in any meaningful way. It only ever applied to broadcast licenses. The way it was justified was that there's a natural limitation on the amount of spectrum, so the government has an interest in ensuring that not all channels on that spectrum are Fox News. The spectrum gets more irrelevant by the day as more TV moves to cable/Internet, and people in general get their new…

#1 There's a variety of goofy primary systems. One could argue that approval voting is the logical conclusion of top-two or jungle primaries.

#3 Public financing reforms have thus far been a bottom-up effort.

As for #2, we'll see. The backlash to social media is pretty intense. There's an opportunity in there some where.

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

#272

Post by JdeBP »

Spearchucker wrote: post #216
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…

Not sure about other EU member states or the EU itself, but in Germany free speech is intentionally not a right, because of the German right to live free of abuse by others. Speech can obviously be used as a form of abuse.

Herewith article 5 of the Basic Law of Germany stating the right to freedom of expression, one of the several fundamental rights enshrined in the Basic Law right up front, before anything else.

* https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/aufgaben/rechtsgrundlagen...

Enjoy.

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

#273

Post by criddell »

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.

Maybe they need to flip their process. Rather than default accept, maybe they should have default reject.

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

#274

Post by aljones »

happertiger wrote: post #207
jjeaff wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the Zuckerberg ad was rejected seems to indicate that they really were being put through a vetting process. It's possible they are vetted again after payment is received but that seems unlikely.

No it only proves they reject ads from the founder of the company. That’s the only proof you can establish based on the facts. There is no evidence they are vetting anything, and in fact it’s more likely they just filter out zuck.* than the implication that a larger system is at work (Occams razor).

"An attempt to place an ad posing as Hillary Clinton was denied."

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

#276

Post by illiac_1962 »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #213
valarauca1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dog it’s a PHP shop, nobody re-uses code

Facebook recently became the principal sponsor of the Python Software Foundation[1]. Although I don't have any concrete numbers to cite, there's a lot of Python code at Facebook. Calling it a PHP shop would be highly inaccurate and myopic. [1]: https://www.python.org/psf/sponsorship/sponsors/ Disclaimer: I work there on python runtime optimization, which mostly involves writing C (and C++) code. Also, I've never had…

So are they just going to keep rewriting shoddy dynamic language run-times for every project? There are real cross-platform programming languages available with highly optimized run-times and tons of scalability features--just saying.

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

#277

Post by JdeBP »

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…

Herewith the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, wherein one will find no specific exceptions actually made.

* https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...

Enjoy.

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

#278

Post by ddingus »

bluecalm wrote: post #222
ddingus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do what that progressive in New York did to challenge the #4 Democrat in the house and win. (Osario-Cortez) She did exactly that. Campaign was as follows: Identify policy platform and benefit to winning majority of voters. Identify win numbers. Two of hers were Medicare for All and Living Wages. Organize volunteers to canvass. Break it down and insure coverage. Canvass, hold events, town hall, rallies, etc... Continu…

All those things are very expensive and someone without significant backing won't be able to afford them. Ads are cheaper and more effective, especially when you're just starting and don't know if you should invest more of your time and money.

Buying votes is way more expensive than asking for them is. About 30 people are in these mid term general elections doing exactly what I put there. None of them have significant means. Most of them beat the people doing it "the very expensive way."

You are not wrong, buying an office is not cheap. People lacking significant backing, or personal means cannot afford to do that.

That is not the only way to do politicking.

I am not wrong either.

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

#279

Post by ekianjo »

eftychis wrote: post #194
ekianjo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Co…

What you describe is "legal precedents", not laws per se. Sure, that is also a power to make decisions, but it's quite different from enacting new laws altogether.
Post reply on HN