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

Twitter to ban political advertising

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#561

Post by jimkleiber »

danboarder wrote: post #549

I know this is about people paying for posts with money, but if one zooms out a bit to think about this -- any user of a platform like Twitter is paying/spending time (aka paying in their time and attention). IMO, trying to police and stop people from spreading their ideas online (political or otherwise) is a fools errand, and the antithesis of how social networks function.

I'm starting to see Twitter and Facebook more like the newspapers, and really, more like the delivery service. Perhaps I could print anything in a newspaper, which I can't, but even if I could, someone would have to deliver that newspaper to the doorsteps of people for them to read it or they would have to go try to find a copy in the store. These platforms already have delivery routes determined through algorithms, already choosing who receives which newspapers.

What role do you think these networks should play in distributing these posts to our door?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#562

Post by cartoonworld »

pmart123 wrote: post #524
baddox wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, you can point out one extreme side of the continuum. What about the other extreme, where every political ad contains blatant lies because anyone who doesn't do that cannot possibly get elected? > I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficult to determine. Even when truth is easy to determine, there are few arbiters of information that everyone alongside the aisle trust. This is t…

The cream should eventually rise to the top. Political ads are now archived for anyone to scrutinize. If a politician kept releasing ridiculous ads, voters and the general public would likely know about the existence at least. Censoring ads opens up a much larger can of worms IMO. "Republicans back the green deal" could mean: a. Congressional Republican majority b. Some elected Republicans c. A group of Republican vo…

You mention that political ads are archived for anyone to scrutinize. I am not aware of this and my belief is that this is both not the case, and in fact very difficult to execute due to the ephemeral nature of internet advertising.

For example, imagine my TIMECUBE PAC ponies up for 2500 targeted facebook micro-campaigns with very slight variations depending on the target demo with an ad spend of $20, $50K cost. Would it be actually possible for anybody to get Facebook to tell them who I was advertising at, or what those ads were?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#564

Post by ninth_ant »

annadane wrote: post #550
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #102

From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…

That's what confuses me, a bit. Consider just as a hypothetical that Facebook is the single most unethical company on earth. Just as an example, whether you agree with it or not. I still wouldn't necessarily agree with what's being asked of them, to actively disallow political ads with lies. I think there's a good case to be made for just not having political ads (because of all the reasons you'd expect)... but I can…

It’s not weird at all, it’s a power grab. The politicians want to use social media as an excuse to become arbiters of the truth.

It’s repulsive and short-sighted, it appears to me they have forgotten or disregarded the old adage to not claim a new power you wouldn’t trust your opponents with.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#565

Post by stickfigure »

comex wrote: post #544
jlmorton wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I had a bit of a different take. I actually think even this simple statement is incredibly difficult to verify. First, we have to define what the Green New Deal even is. I don't mean this to be snarky, but even that is difficult. Then we have to define what support means. Does it mean positive comments in t…

“X supports the Green New Deal” is indeed highly subjective for some values of X. But that doesn’t include most Republicans, who have been consistently against the whole thing from start to finish.

I think the parent's point is that the variable is for some values of "Green New Deal".

It's like how Republicans (tend to) oppose "socialized health care" but support Medicare. A lot of politics is just playing with words, and "Green New Deal" offers plenty of ambiguity.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#566

Post by _AzMoo »

mandevil wrote: post #281
criddell wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "should a political party be allowed to run targeted ads at members of the opposing party, giving false information about the election date?" Would that actually be legal? Are you allowed to try to suppress the vote like that?

It is 100% legal to send mailers or put up billboards (which are not as regulated as shared spectrum for TV/radio) with the wrong election date to people, and this happens a couple of times every election cycle. Sometimes its government agencies, sometimes its a campaign (first example that popped up when googling: https://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle/zeld... ). I don't think any of them has been i…

It's funny that I have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the comments to reach a discussion that I think really highlights the crux of the problem. We know that social media platforms will take down content that is illegal. The issue is that it's legal for political parties (or anybody) to post false or misleading statements for the purposes of political propaganda.

AOC's hypothetical ad shouldn't be policed by Facebook, it should be policed by the police, or at the very least be an example of criminal defamation that is handled in the court system. I Am Clearly Not A Lawyer but I am surprised by looking at the existing legislation on criminal defamation that it's not.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#567

Post by neltnerb »

anon73044 wrote: post #530
siosonel wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"binary judgement of truth" I think people should be more comfortable with non-binary truth, based on the likelihood that something is a lie or not based on historical record. I would put more trust in a statement from someone with a record of telling unbiased truth versus someone with a record of frequently spewing lies or having ingrained bias. Otherwise, if you don't make these types of initial simplifications, it…

>comfortable with non-binary truth Careful, getting a bit too postmodernists in here. If you look at it too hard all "truths" become false eventually, and that can pave the way to apathy. >And it's okay to be make a mistaken evaluation, just reevaluate and adjust the simplified "truth" assessment model based on more recent data. And how many politicians on both sides of the aisle double-down on an issue just to remai…

> If you look at it too hard all "truths" become false eventually, and that can pave the way to apathy.

Isn't the point of seeing the truth as non-binary that they cannot become false? Just less likely to be true?

This seems intrinsically more amenable to changing one's mind on the truth of something, though I agree that not having an opinion on the truth of something is apathetic. Just because you strongly believe that you're about 60% sure that something is true doesn't make it less strongly held.

I do this all the time in scientific analysis... estimating how likely I am to be correct is part of the job.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#568

Post by smt88 »

ninth_ant wrote: post #564
annadane wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what confuses me, a bit. Consider just as a hypothetical that Facebook is the single most unethical company on earth. Just as an example, whether you agree with it or not. I still wouldn't necessarily agree with what's being asked of them, to actively disallow political ads with lies. I think there's a good case to be made for just not having political ads (because of all the reasons you'd expect)... but I can…

It’s not weird at all, it’s a power grab. The politicians want to use social media as an excuse to become arbiters of the truth. It’s repulsive and short-sighted, it appears to me they have forgotten or disregarded the old adage to not claim a new power you wouldn’t trust your opponents with.

They were asking Facebook to arbitrate the truth. That’s not a power grab.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#569

Post by jimkleiber »

I look at the analytics for one of my Tweets and at the bottom it says: "Reach a bigger audience. Get more engagements by promoting this Tweet!"

...or what Jack said: paying to increase reach.

I think I always thought that Twitter ads were these magical separate entities, when really, they seem to be normal Tweets that are just paid to be more popular.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#570

Post by spunker540 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #222
colechristensen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't have a problem with expanding that to include social issues. You bought a ticket to see a game, not a billboard. This is a problem I have with modern social movements, when they fail to get audiences in public spaces they seek out captive audiences or to be disruptive as possible to completely unrelated places. Hold your rally in a park or march down main street or a pedestrian way or in front of some plac…

> You bought a ticket to see a game, not a billboard. Absolutely. So let's get rid of advertising at games. Not just political advertising; all advertising. No Democratic or Republican ads, but also no Toyota or Chrysler ads, no Coors or Bud Light ads. Unfortunately, there's too much money at stake for that to ever happen. But political ads are different. I don't think Coors drinkers get offended when they see a Bud…

What is an ad? Can the beer cans say "Coors"? Can airplanes fly by with ads trailing? Can people's clothing display brands? Can the players' shoes have the Nike swoosh? Can pop-up shops sell their goods at the store or give out samples? Can a company buy tickets just to plant attendees who will loudly wear their brands? These are all forms of marketing. If they are permissible, then how do you enforce it? No billboards over a certain size? No audio or video ads?
Post reply on HN