Twitter to ban political advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#591

Post by conanbatt » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

randiantech wrote: post #487

zanny wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to make a slippery slope argument about a private corporations private, for-profit website is hilarious. Twitter 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. If you don't want your communications to be under the total absolute control of a corporate entity you have no influence over, you might want to pack your bag…

Im scared of such arguments. And im telling you as a libertarian. No, private companies should be regulated and shareholders cant be the only voice to be heard. I mean, what if starbucks shareholders decide that, lets say, african americans are no longer allowed to buy coffe on their shops. Would it be ok to allow it?

That would be against the interests of the shareholders. But if they all got together and decided to do so, the result would be that racists would go under, and I do not want to help racists succeed in business!

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#592

Post by charwalker » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

lpolovets wrote: post #471

I'm still not sure what I think about the ban, but one potential downside is it will give people with lots of organic reach, like celebrities and incumbents, a big advantage. Before you could use organic reach to combat paid reach and vice versa, but now organic reach is the only thing that counts. For example, if The Rock runs for governor of California next year, it will be very hard for his opponents to compete (a…

One might say this is good as it will increase organic participation in elections and politics.

If that organic component is bad like The Rock running terminator style, that may be very obvious given there isn't an astroturf campaign to keep that bad organic support alive.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#593

Post by rtkwe » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:29 AM UTC

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #589

tasty_freeze wrote: post #289

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…

Most cops won't hassle you for going 45 in a 35 zone unless it's meaningfully unsafe, and the Autobahn's speed limit "don't be an idiot" at human discretion. 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 adverti…

I would say yes because it's not actually a political ad, a political ad would be 'support abortion rights', 'keep abortion legal', etc, what you're talking about is directly an advertisement of a service. It could blur the line depending on the exact content but just because a service has been politicized doesn't mean ads about that service inherently become political.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#594

Post by pubutil » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:33 AM UTC

jimkleiber wrote: post #539

pubutil wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“. . . was not really countered at all” That was probably the only point Zuckerberg made that I agree with, though I don’t doubt that we think that way for different reasons. If I know social networks are deleting ads or posts that are deemed untruthful then 1) how do I see who determines the truthfulness of the network’s content and 2) how can I trust that nothing else is being removed at will? It’s a classic argum…

What if the networks aren't deleting the content but just not distributing it to you? For example, Facebook determines what shows up on my newsfeed. If my friend posts something, and Facebook guesses that I won't be interested in it, it won't show on my newsfeed (I think) or it will be buried in the less important section. It may still exist on my friend's wall because he posted it, but I don't see it unless I active…

I’m not sure how much of the population would agree with me here, but I would prefer to be shown content organically. I’m talking posts sorted chronologically, not cherry picked for me, just the raw feed essentially.

Having an algorithm or AI determine what I will or won’t see on a social media page is marginally better than a person deciding that no one should see that content. With that said, my bottom line here is that I would prefer that my internet experience go completely untampered with. I come online to discover new things that I wouldn’t see otherwise. Whether that’s a new hobby or a political falsehood, I want to discover and form an opinion on it myself.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#595

Post by ousta » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:34 AM UTC

modriano wrote: post #581

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…

[flagged]

things are not that easy sir. take climate change. they are crooks on both sides. al gore got a lot of money out of those shamanic statement that world would end by 2018. gretta same. people push their agenda. everything is politic even green activist

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#596

Post by gameswithgo » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:37 AM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #352

gameswithgo wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the use of fake account swarms to spread political ideology seems the more powerful use of twitter than legitimate ads. will we see a correspondingly brave effort to delete fake accounts?

Already against the TOS, and they already do that.

yet they seem pervasive still.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#597

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:38 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #520

monkeywork wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it not better to take the twitter approach here and just say - political advertising = banned? Take the decision out of what is true / not true out of it and just remove the political advertisements all together.

All advertising is incredibly political, because companies operate in a politicized world. Under this guidance for example, Shell could advertise all they want on twitter, but running an ad against Shell about how they pollute the environment or contribute to global warming would be banned. So then your options are to ban all advertising, or be selective in what advertising you allow. Which is inherently a political…

I am not buying this, in the narrow definition, politics is relevant to politicians and elections. Shell is just a private company, so is fair game.

Secondly, suppose you could not advertise about shell so what? You can advertise for Greenpeace and related causes.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#598

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #248

octonion wrote: post #200

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.

We have rules against slander, defamation, libel, blackmail and leaking secrets, technically they are speech.

Yet we usually manage to distinguish them. I don't think this is an intractable problem.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#599

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #317

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Green New Deal. Who really supports it? Click here to find out more." Just move the propaganda two hops away.

would already greatly diminish the effect. Two hops away is a magnitude or two less of exposure. When Spain changed organ donations from opt-in to opt-out the rate increased from 30% to 9x%. That's one tick of a box. I see these comments a lot and I don't know if people purposefully try to downplay the role of smart design because they pursue an agenda or if people seriously don't recognise how significant small chan…

Likewise, I always see these statements and they come across very disingenuous.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#600

Post by ClumsyPilot » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #553

ctdonath wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about ... freedom of speech? Quit trying to micro manage everyone. Accept payment to publish messages on a competitive platform - and let readers, being mostly competent adults, figure content out themselves.

I’d take it a step further and limit who is allowed to vote. You mention competent adults; an adult in 1800 was probably competent around 16 years of age. An adult today is similarly competent at a later age. Regardless of competency, there should be some eligibility requirements to vote. Holding a job should be one. Proof of citizenship should be another.

At least be consistent with the despicable point you are making!

How does flipping burgers qualify you to have a say in how to run a country?

Take away votes from the uneducated, the criminal, the insane, people with low IQ, and the tax dodging millionaires.