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…
Twitter to ban political advertising
581–590 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We have the civil rights act of 1964.
But presumably, were this discussion taking place in 1963, there would be someone saying: will do whatever the hell it wants on its own property and has no obligation to listen to anyone except the voice of 51% of its shareholders.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#583I feel like this is a major blow to democrats more than republicans as democrats have a larger audience on Twitter. Do democrats not think they too benefit from carpet bombing ads?
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#584Perhaps it’s my own selection bias but why does it feel like everyone thinks this will righteously hurt republicans and be beneficial to democrats? I feel like this is a major blow to democrats more than republicans as democrats have a larger audience on Twitter. Do democrats not think they too benefit from carpet bombing ads?
> We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.
> - https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952
If Democrats have a larger audience, they don't need to pay for the exposure, they already have it.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will remove the direct influence on who the ad gets sent to at least, a tweet will spread organically to a much wider audience than a targeted ad so messages cannot be as micro-targeted.
Good point. Now if only we could ban micro-targetting in general. It's a corrosive force to society in a wide array of scenarios, not just political advertising. (For instance, it's been known to facilitate discrimination in real estate and the job market.)
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#586From 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…
One persons "suppression of speech" is another persons right to not publish and spread that persons bullshit. This is why people always bring up that the "Free speech" is a concept that applies to governments(never-mind the historical origins in ancient Athens which was largely around protecting political discourse and dissent from prosecution..). Like many restrictions placed on the government it falls apart and bec…
Just as Newton didn't create the law of gravity, no man or government created the right to freedom of expression. That there are certain rights which exist as prerequisites necessary for the formation of a peaceful society of civilized humans was not created, it was discovered.
Aristotle and others argued that each kind of animal has a mental nature that is appropriate to its physical nature. All animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically fitted to live. Thus humans are naturally capable of knowing how to live together and do business with each other without killing each other.
In England the theory of natural law led to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of right, and the English Enlightenment. It was the basis for the US revolution and the US bill of rights.
The fact that society runs smoothly when natural law is applied has been proven over and over again. Over and over and over again throughout the ages tyrants and social engineers have tested these natural laws, the end result of such disrespect has always led and always will lead to one thing and one thing only: violence.
That people no longer understand this, and that corporations and powerful pseudo-rulers do not respect this, is nothing new, but only shows how much we are regressing as a society in terms of our basic respect for our fellow man.
Deflecting from that by pretending that only the government is responsible for respecting this truth is... well... ignorant and recklessly defiant not only of the lessons of history, but of human nature itself.
What the Constitution formally acknowledges and attempts to respect, which should apply to everybody operating within the social contract, is that any ruler, or anyone who places themselves in the position of a ruler, who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed, and his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the common enemies of all mankind.
What I am saying has provided the moral and legal basis for many great revolutions, and many governments.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those pesky Americans with their free speech... doesn’t anyone here see what this really is about? The elites have lost control of the narrative so they are doing what all elites do in a time of crisis: ban it all. Shut up you mere mortals and go back to doing what you’re told and thinking what we want you to think.
(I didn't downvote you but) I think the "elites" are the ones who most abuse the right to free speech, by controlling mass media and the public narrative, as well as conflating political contributions as "speech". Money talks. When Jack says: > 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 in…
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#588From 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…
One persons "suppression of speech" is another persons right to not publish and spread that persons bullshit. This is why people always bring up that the "Free speech" is a concept that applies to governments(never-mind the historical origins in ancient Athens which was largely around protecting political discourse and dissent from prosecution..). Like many restrictions placed on the government it falls apart and bec…
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#589Whenever 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…
One problem is the fuzzy nature of "political" advertising: For example, many people think of Planned Parenthood as a political organization, and some people think of Planned Parenthood as a health care provider. Ought Planned Parenthood to be allowed to advertise abortion services on Twitter?
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#590One of the key aspects of political content on social media is that you don't necessarily need to buy ads to get your message in front of people. You can instead pay for an army of bots to spread your message and make it appear as genuine user generated content rather than a prepackaged advertisement. So while this decision by Twitter is in my opinion good, what are they doing to cut down on inauthentic political eng…