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

TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#41

Post by nielsole »

HunOL wrote: post #20
captainmuon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. There is a de-facto ban on political advertizing (or "worldview" advertizing) in Germany, and it is really frustrating.…

> How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. It increase impact of money. Who have more money more likely to win.

In Germany Political parties get reimbursed for expenses based on how many votes they received. This reduces the dependence upon corporate gifts.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#42

Post by beager »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #34
beager wrote: post #31

An effective razor for what I presume will be a lively discussion here: Your first amendment rights don’t compel a private sector company to host your speech, or require them to accept your ad dollars for your message

No but American ideals may. It's not all about 'what's the legal minimum they can get away with'. Hopefully its not just about that. As a platform hosting media, it's not clear what their editorial latitude is, or should be.

Ideals are unfortunately insignificant here. Companies are all about doing the legal minimum, especially if that is in line with profit maximum. Right, wrong, or indifferent.

Also, I believe they have absolute editorial latitude. They’re not a utility.

Don’t want to wet-blanket your post because I do think companies should be idealistic, bold, and consistent with their policies, notwithstanding what laws or constitutional rights dictate. But you can’t compel them to be, and arguing that they should be leads you down a path of moot argument and friction.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#43

Post by Aperocky »

kypro wrote: post #3

Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. As a side note, I wish there was less exposure to political opinion in general. I think there's a problem in how a single celeb, or a close friend talking about their political views can be so influential. Not because they've made a particularly good argument, but because that person is trusted or looked up to. I often wonder how we would vote if we were…

Totally agree. All ads present a very one sided story, for products this is fine as you would need to pay for it, hence the negative consideration. For a political opinion it’s just there to influence and appeal to inherent bias in the direction of the ad.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#44

Post by JoeAltmaier »

nielsole wrote: post #41
HunOL wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. It increase impact of money. Who have more money more likely to win.

In Germany Political parties get reimbursed for expenses based on how many votes they received. This reduces the dependence upon corporate gifts.

I understand the practicality of that. But it sets up an expected-value loop, where a dark horse candidate can expect very little reimbursement. Which limits how much campaigning they can do. So they get few votes.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#45

Post by brightball »

kypro wrote: post #3

Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. As a side note, I wish there was less exposure to political opinion in general. I think there's a problem in how a single celeb, or a close friend talking about their political views can be so influential. Not because they've made a particularly good argument, but because that person is trusted or looked up to. I often wonder how we would vote if we were…

Message density and peer pressure is my guess.

I've long wondered if it's easier to influence people in more densely populated areas. There's so much concentrated advertising and messaging to such a large number of people, it seems inescapable.

What constantly reinforces this idea is the amount of, what appears to be emotionally driven political conversation that comes from densely populated areas.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#46

Post by JoeAltmaier »

beager wrote: post #42
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but American ideals may. It's not all about 'what's the legal minimum they can get away with'. Hopefully its not just about that. As a platform hosting media, it's not clear what their editorial latitude is, or should be.

Ideals are unfortunately insignificant here. Companies are all about doing the legal minimum, especially if that is in line with profit maximum. Right, wrong, or indifferent. Also, I believe they have absolute editorial latitude. They’re not a utility. Don’t want to wet-blanket your post because I do think companies should be idealistic, bold, and consistent with their policies, notwithstanding what laws or constitut…

Doesn't mean the public should let them get away with it, or whitewash it. Ideals mean something to the public (I hope). We should make that plain. Its about the only leverage we have.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#48

Post by JoeAltmaier »

tu7001 wrote: post #47

Censoring information about Hong Kong protests may be taken as a bad thing. But it seems obvious to me, that banning pro LGBT content in app for kids is very desirable.

Disagree. Kids can learn about all sorts of people. Not sure where that comment was supposed to be going. Should images of black people be banned from apps for kids?

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#49

Post by Nasrudith »

dangerface wrote: post #40
captainmuon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. There is a de-facto ban on political advertizing (or "worldview" advertizing) in Germany, and it is really frustrating.…

> How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? There is a difference between marketing and advertising thats not being recognised. Marketing is the process of promoting an idea or group, not advertising. Advertising is one of the channels used in marketing, it's the most expensive and reaches the most people, it's the ideal channel for pr…

The thing is such a ban ammounts to a subcontractor ban - those who own them may still advertise. It is less fungible but still a propaganda channel and made more exclusive as parties need to buy the whole hog instead of the ribs metaphorically.

Foreign governments funding grassroots and "grassroots" is an old trick to the Cold War as well from both sides.

Re: TikTok explains its ban on political advertising

#50

Post by dictum »

afiori wrote: post #24
abfar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we require that every $1 spent by someone on a political ad must also be balanced by a $1 subsidy for the opponents' ads? Seems fair to me and would reduce the impact of money. (I'm sorry but I forgot who proposed this idea.)

What about systems that are not strictly with two sides?

I'm not convinced, but there's a possible setup: a fund. Entities donate to the fund, and then the money would be distributed among the candidates (either equally, among a smaller number of qualifying candidates, or for all candidates, proportional to e.g. a party's representatives in the legislative branch)

(This would do nothing about money buying influence — as long as the donors are known, their wishes would be carried out by at least the major parties)

Post reply on HN