391–400 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox News has rejected Trump ads too: https://time.com/5445246/fox-nbc-facebook-controversial-trum... But go ahead and make this a partisan thing.
If you are under the delusion that print and TV media is duly fact checking all political ads, then you are free to believe what you want.
What defines a political ad? For example are prolife ads political, even if they mention no laws or politics? What about ads that do not mention politics but are targeted to influence policy? Seems like an ambiguous category except for outright promoting particular candidates and laws.
This level of pedantry drives me up the wall. Not everything needs to be invented from first principles. Profile ads are banned, yes, because they involve teh candidates. Policy ads are banned because they again involve politics. We can start anywhere ! Let's say 'nothing from any entity that receives money from a political party'. Or 'anything mentioning election candidates'. Or 'anything with certain keywords in it…
A great example of this is Ferrari's evolution to avoid the F1 cigarette ban. They started with the word Marlboro on the side of their car, then they moved to a barcode that resembled a pack of cigarettes, and now they are partnered with a front company called Mission Winnow (google it, it's really interesting) that is widely believed to be subliminal advertising for Marlboro.
I don't think political ads were ever really a problem on Twitter. The crux of Twitter's problems are what I like to call virtual populism (i.e. bot armies retweeting propaganda and fake news).
With virtual populism, the illusion of an organic movement is created and this illusion eventually draws in real humans (after all, bots don't vote).
Whenever these topics come up, the comment section is full of people advocating for no limits based solely on slipper slope arguments: who is going to determine what is politcal? Who is going to determine what is true? But we all life with boundaries and we cope just fine. Why should this street in front of my house have a 35 MPH speed limit? What is special about 35? Why not 36? Why not 34? Who is to say that one is…
yep, the whole "who decides on the truth?" thing is extremely irritating. Do we throw out every court case now because apparently it's impossible to determine what is fact and what is fiction, or to establish common rules or guidelines for conduct? We've been doing nothing else for thousands of years.
If anything, prosecutors have been taking your attitude and gaming the system with plea deals, so you're not merely wrong, but horribly wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I recall in the JRE and Sam Harris interviews, Jack seemed very reasonable. I think Twitter is something that's gotten away from him (certainly from what he'd like) and is being run by the inmates to a significant degree.
That was my impression as well. It was interesting to see Jack answer and then have the legal council (?) amend Jack's answers or push them in a specific direction. It's very clear that there is a mismatch between what Jack wants, what Twitter shareholders want, and what Twitter's activist pseudo-employee contingent wants.
But this announcement is absolutely stellar. Who knows if Harris influenced him ;-)
Bravo. That whole thread is smart, well-reasoned, and puts democracy above profits. Good for them. I particularly like his last point: > A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address. Whic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yep, the whole "who decides on the truth?" thing is extremely irritating. Do we throw out every court case now because apparently it's impossible to determine what is fact and what is fiction, or to establish common rules or guidelines for conduct? We've been doing nothing else for thousands of years.
A basic legal doctrine is that "it's better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be unjustly imprisoned." If anything, prosecutors have been taking your attitude and gaming the system with plea deals, so you're not merely wrong, but horribly wrong.
But nobody says "Johnny the crazy axe murderer gets to roam free because who is to decide what is true or not?" Which is just about where the speech debate is for some people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that hard. The UK (and I believe most of Europe) has heavily regulated political advertising. Politicians can't advertise on billboards here, and TV slots are strictly regulated (and time-limited). I'm not entirely sure what criteria are used, but it seems to work reasonably well.
That doesn't mean they're doing it fairly. It just means that people have accepted that certain voices are silenced.
This will not help with trolls and viral campaigns though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are political propaganda and deliberate lies the type of speech the Founding Fathers were trying to protect?
The issue is who gets to be the arbiter of what counts as "political propaganda and deliberate lies"? The founding fathers thought that if government was given such power it would be abused to stifle speech that fell outside of those categories so the only way to protect speech was to protect it all. I tend to think that if this is true for government, it's probably true for large corporations as well.