Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter to ban political advertising

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#711

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

sacrificedcapon wrote: post #684
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…

You do realize that saudi arabia, china, russia, etc all have laws in place to hold newspaper editors responsible for printing "truth" right? > This is what has kept our society well informed and critical thinking for a hundred years. What makes you think you are a well-informed and critical thinking society? Don't most danes think alike just like most saudis, chinese, russians, etc. Don't most danes think and believ…

You don't discredit anti-vaxxers with speech. Same with flat-earthers. Same with fascists. You know what works? De-platforming them. Not giving them a voice in the public discourse. Not taking anti-vaxxers seriously and placing them at the same level as doctors because ''both sides'' and ''free speech''.

What has been proven again and again is that bad information drives out good, because it's so, so much easier to write bad information. So you need to keep a tight lid on people who spread actual bad information. If not you might end up as the US, with a reality-tv star as president.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#712

Post by hubert1234 »

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…

I just found the perfect way to sum this all up and I'm making a prediction: NRA ads will be banned on twitter but Planned Parenthood ads will not. The total lack of self reflection and thinking on part of Twitter is really something else. Facebook made the right decision, Twitter made the wrong decision. It cannot be more obvious.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#713

Post by beaner »

moksly wrote: post #695
ralusek wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lowest level of truth telling is stating facts, but even stating facts can be extremely manipulative. If I were to say: "2x as many white Americans were killed by police as black Americans in 2018." This a true fact. If I take note of the fact that black Americans only constitute 13% of the population, then I can say "A black American is 2.3x as likely as a white American to be killed by police." This is also a t…

Every example you provide is legal, what isn’t legal is telling people that the moon is made of cheese in a non-satirical news article.

That's kind of besides the point though. He was showing that even when printing things that would be considered legally truthful, you can still maintain a narrative.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#714

Post by ithkuil »

grandmczeb wrote: post #703
moksly wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every example you provide is legal, what isn’t legal is telling people that the moon is made of cheese in a non-satirical news article.

Would the following statement be allowed? “Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor. The prosecutor said he was forced out for leading a corruption probe into Hunter Biden's company.”

It's indeed true that the prosecutor said that. Whether what he said is true, is another thing.

The problem is that it doesn't only matter that stated facts are correct; it matters also that people reading them interpret them correctly. Natural language is messy; people jump to conclusions also because often we do communicate intentionally by hiding meaning between the lines.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#715

Post by StreamBright »

belltaco wrote: post #265
StreamBright wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who is going to decide what is the truth? Ministry of truth?

See other countries where there are stricter rules, UK for example. The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?

Other countries? Ok.

- https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...

I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive

- https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil...

- https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee...

It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#716

Post by danmaz74 »

ralusek wrote: post #685
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 lowest level of truth telling is stating facts, but even stating facts can be extremely manipulative. If I were to say: "2x as many white Americans were killed by police as black Americans in 2018." This a true fact. If I take note of the fact that black Americans only constitute 13% of the population, then I can say "A black American is 2.3x as likely as a white American to be killed by police." This is also a t…

You can frame facts in different ways, but you can also tell things that contradict known facts - ie, lies. It's the latter that shouldn't go without consequences.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#717

Post by moopling »

beaner wrote: post #713
moksly wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every example you provide is legal, what isn’t legal is telling people that the moon is made of cheese in a non-satirical news article.

That's kind of besides the point though. He was showing that even when printing things that would be considered legally truthful, you can still maintain a narrative.

Just because it doesn't completely solve the problem doesn't mean it's not an improvement.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#718

Post by StreamBright »

throwaway_law wrote: post #303
StreamBright wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who is going to decide what is the truth? Ministry of truth?

Typically jury of your peers, they are after all called the finders of fact.

What rate of misjudgment would you be ok with?

I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.

Post reply on HN