661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Woul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one could imagine a hack of defining political ads as "anything that would need to be reported to the FEC as an expenditure." That misses a whole bunch of political advertising. Most of it, I'd wager.
You have to start somewhere.
Twitter will stop accepting money for political advertising. This is not the same as "stop(ping) all political advertising on Twitter".
Other people will continue promote things there and get paid for it regardless of what twitter's policy is.
I worry that a widespread misunderstanding of this will increase the public's vulnerability to paid manipulation on Twitter, particularly in a way that maximizes the impact of the least honest parties.
This is what has kept our society well informed and critical thinking for a hundred years. It’s also allowed for different sides of things, because you can interpret things like socioeconomic statistics and facts differently and write about them as such, but you can’t make up things.
This died with Facebook, YouTube and the non-editorial entertainment “news” and as a result we have anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and what not.
I have no idea how to regulate it though, but I think we need to do something.
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…
They worked, and then came attempts to avoid campaign finance laws.
Choosing not to take money for potential political advertisements is good business for the owners of a public forum.
If it’s easy to verify, it’ll be good for anyone that cares about knowing what true public opinion looks like.
If a candidate or their representatives publish false information in the election season and any citizen complains about it, the election commision can try the candidate and perhaps even ban the candidate from participating in the elections.
The onus is directly on the liar to not lie
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to start somewhere.
No. You actually don't have to start somewhere. Starting somewhere bad without a plan is actively bad. Here's the thing, people. FB and Twitter are pretty much garbage. That's fine, and we all mostly agree about that. Here's the worst part of social media in general: it's uniting the absolute shittiest of the Republicans with the absolute shittiest of the Democrats and encouraging them both to get together and form a…
Does USA have something like an election commision? If a candidate or their representatives publish false information in the election season and any citizen complains about it, the election commision can try the candidate and perhaps even ban the candidate from participating in the elections. The onus is directly on the liar to not lie