What's a can of worms!
Who decides what's "political" and what it's not?
Wait for it..... the shit show has just begun!
Twitter to ban political advertising
601–610 of 1001 posts
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#602Earlier 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…
The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit. In this context, the question is whether something is political speech or something else. What is included and excluded from that category will get pretty interesting. We saw the same thing with compelled…
> The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit.
For a general view:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Probabilistic_logic
Bayesian side:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/A_priori_probability
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayesian_inference (Bayesian Updating)
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#603Bravo. 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…
TikTok also bans political advertising.
Are there any other companies?
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#604Earlier 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…
The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit. In this context, the question is whether something is political speech or something else. What is included and excluded from that category will get pretty interesting. We saw the same thing with compelled…
> The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument.
To me, this seems like less a problem with degrees of truth, and more a problem with faith in simplistic arguments.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes down to incrementality. Sure Trump has way more money than most challengers, but most people have also already made up their minds about him. His cost to acquire incremental voters is probably much higher than a lesser-known challenger.
Even if he’s not getting incremental votes he can dominate the share of voice by pricing out the competitors.
This is what I'm thinking. Like an advertising carpet bomb that drowns out dissent and sows confusion.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#606We just learned that political speech isn't trouthful
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#607Perhaps 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?
That's in-line with the announcement, though: > 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.
I guess that’s true in many ways. But I wonder how much is preaching to the choir across the board here as the dynamic is following people you mainly don’t know.
Meanwhile the ad spend can be reserved for networks full of more middle-of-the-road people. I guess that’s the big battle ground. And I wonder if republicans can direct more ad spend there now that Twitter is off limits. I guess I’m wondering if Twitter was a necessary drain on their resources they don’t have to worry about now?
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#608Earlier 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.
It's still not easy. Suppose I write a bot that flags all of my competitors ads a political?
Well, Google has figured out how to make it really hard to make a link farm that gets your web page to the top of the listings.
Very similar problem. I would expect that they would keep track of who is doing the flagging and whether their flagging is consistent with other flaggers, and various other tests for "naturalness" and lack of bias and so on. Then weight things appropriately.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#609Earlier 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…
> And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative Strongly disagree, this would imply that an individual's support of a narrative can change simply by the environment around them changing while the individual stays static. Three Christians, two athiests, and an agnostic are sitting at a bar. Does the agnostic support Christianity? Two of the Christians leave. Do…
If the Christians are bullying the athiests, and the agnostic does nothing, then yes, they are implicitly supporting the actions taking place in their vicinity. If they're just all sitting around doing nothing, the implicit support is of them sitting around doing nothing.
Re: Twitter to ban political advertising
#610From 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…
Are political propaganda and deliberate lies the type of speech the Founding Fathers were trying to protect?
Yes, the founding fathers were trying to protect freedom of religion, which is exactly what you just described. Do you have a problem with that?