Twitter to ban political advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#671

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:09 AM UTC

z3phyr wrote: post #668

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

> If a candidate or their representatives publish false information in the election season /.../ perhaps even ban the candidate from participating in the elections.

So we'd have elections with no candidates at all. Or, more realistically, we'd have ones that have opinions matching opinions of those people who sit on the commission. Nice system, though it's not clear why bother with elections then at all - we just let the commission - after all, people who know all the truth must know how to select good people who tell the truth? - to choose suitable candidates. Elections where candidates that the commission doesn't like are excluded are no elections anyway - you can look at Russia how it works, they have "elections" exactly like that - people not approved by Kremlin largely just are excluded from participation, so nobody can vote for them.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#672

Post by ralusek » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:10 AM UTC

neltnerb wrote: post #567

anon73044 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

I think what they mean by truths becoming false is rather that all certainties become uncertainties. Delving too deep in postmodernism is like taking all of your legos and melting them.

If I want to have a conversation about free speech, and a postmodernist begins questioning if we even actually have free will, or if it's even valid to discuss morality if it's entirely possible we exist in a simulation...you haven't actually advanced anything. You've just made soup. Postmodernism is a tool for turning building blocks into soup, and that is more often than not extremely counterproductive. Though it is, to some degree, necessary.

I think the fundamental problem is that aggressive postmodernism will often disregard presuppositions with absolutely no interest in understanding the utility/value of the presupposition.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#673

Post by jdjjdflknfjj » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:12 AM UTC

Aren't political ads rather important for democracy?

Without ads, how are you supposed to announce your newly formed political party?

So it's a democracy - you can form a party to represent your political desires, and try to be elected. Except you can't really tell anybody about it?

Suppose you walk from door to door, and you tell grandma Smith about your new party. Then grandma Smith goes to Twitter and writes how great your party is. If Twitter doesn't like your party, what are the odds of Twitter marking grandma Smith's account as a bot and claiming she did political advertising?

Of course Twitter as a private company is presumably allowed to do this. I just don't understand the general argument against political ads.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#674

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:14 AM UTC

nlh wrote: post #74

Bravo. 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…

Given that practically for any issue of importance there's enough money on each side of the issue to buy a campaign on Twitter, it doesn't really matter. But if Twitter doesn't want to take money that would expose them to pressure over banning somebody's political speech (somehow nowadays it became ok in the US of A to call to ban your political opponent from speaking - who could have known that'd happen?) - it can be a sensible solution. Twitter would still be pressured to ban for politics (and probably would yield to that pressure, as it did many times before) but at least their revenue department would be kept out of this mess.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#675

Post by kennywinker » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:23 AM UTC

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…

Sorta. I mean, corporations are not entirely apolitical. For instance, during a recent heated pipeline approval process in my region, the pipeline company was running “look at all the good we do” feel good ads all over the place. They are not directly saying “vote for so and so” but are promoting specific ideas. Like car companies promoting the idea that your car represents freedom - that’s not apolotical. Cities have been rebuilt to accommodate a lifestyle car companies promoted.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#676

Post by threatofrain » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

eitland wrote: post #632

philipov wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an extremely bad example for two reasons: - one: you are bringing religion into a discussion where it isn't necessary - two: it hangs in a frame where a causual passer-by might think this is usual. I mean: if I write "if the rabbits chases the cats and the dogs do nothing" an hypothetical reader who knows nothing about cats and rabbits might easily get the idea that this is a common occurrence, while in fact…

Religion is absolutely part of the negotiation of power (politics). It is, after all, still 2019, but I think this will be so even in Dune.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#677

Post by kennywinker » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:27 AM UTC

damq wrote: post #577

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wrong. Companies that buy advertising at games pay a pretty penny for it. Fans who buy tickets to games have paid to watch the game, not to advertise their cause. If fans want to advertise at games, they can pay the advertising rate.

Yes we must respect our corporate overlords, by their good graces we sit in their stadiums. It would be disrespectful to treat this private space like a public forum in any way. Even if the stadium WAS partially built using public funds...

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#678

Post by Kalium » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:28 AM UTC

nlh wrote: post #74

Bravo. 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…

> It’s certainly not what the first amendment is about.

Freedom of the Press has always been about expression and the ability to pay for reach. Printing presses were - and are - horrendously expensive.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#679

Post by Kalium » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:30 AM UTC

moksly wrote: post #666

In Denmark we have laws in place that hold news paper editors responsible for printing truth. They don’t always succeed, but they try to, and when they do fail they admit it and apologise. 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 wr…

The question is always if the cure is worth than the disease. It is easy to fall into the Politicians Syllogism, and wind up adopting a terrifyingly bad policy out of a sense that something must be done*.

Choosing to wait and observe is always a viable choice, to be considered alongside all forms of intervention.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#680

Post by pojzon » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 6:32 AM UTC

moksly wrote: post #666

In Denmark we have laws in place that hold news paper editors responsible for printing truth. They don’t always succeed, but they try to, and when they do fail they admit it and apologise. 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 wr…

> and when they do fail they admit it and apologise

We have those laws in Poland too. They lie on front page and apologise with small font on the last page.