Twitter to ban political advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#751

Post by Yessing » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:55 AM UTC

akie wrote: post #739

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…

> In America, we understand that there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than an entity that feels entitled to control what is true. It might make things easier, and it might actually produce better results so long as the entity doing so is competent and benevolent, but nearly every structure in America is meant to serve as a bulwark for the cases in which the entity in power is precisely the sort that you do not…

I mean his arguments is the basis of the the separation of powers. It's only American insofar as American democracy was inspired in it's founding by the enlightenment thinkers.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#752

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:55 AM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #746

akie wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In America, we understand that there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than an entity that feels entitled to control what is true. It might make things easier, and it might actually produce better results so long as the entity doing so is competent and benevolent, but nearly every structure in America is meant to serve as a bulwark for the cases in which the entity in power is precisely the sort that you do not…

Trump has been able to do very little, and this is a good thing. However, what he has done is effectively demonstrate that the executive branch has too much centralized power, not too little. In regards to whether or not it would be great if we had a powerful centralized body that could determine what constitute outrageous lies worthy of a fine, no, for the reasons I've already stated, I do not think that this would…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#753

Post by ralusek » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

silvester23 wrote: post #728

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…

> In America, we understand that there is absolutely nothing more dangerous than an entity that feels entitled to control what is true. It might make things easier, and it might actually produce better results so long as the entity doing so is competent and benevolent, but nearly every structure in America is meant to serve as a bulwark for the cases in which the entity in power is precisely the sort that you do not…

There is obviously an upside and a downside. The platitude that "freedom isn't free" is something that seems to be lost on critics of the effects of liberty.

I don't think the free speech absolutism present in the US was ever meant to suggest that there isn't such thing as undesirable speech, but rather that the potential for tyranny under regulated speech is a danger well worth avoiding at any cost.

In addition to that, America is a country that works forwards from principles much more often than European nations, which very often work backwards from objectives. To frame the right to free speech in regards to whether or not it is "working out" is not a particularly American frame of reference. The principle that individuals should express themselves as they see fit, and that this is the foundation for a free and open society, is essentially square one.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#754

Post by Spare_account » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:05 AM UTC

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #727

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

That's been proven? Where? Because at least anecdotally, I recall reading so many stories of people who were talked out of a cult by having better information presented to them.

I think if you're pushing back on the GP to ask for evidence, it is intellectually dishonest to go ahead and make your own un-founded statements. Can _you_ link to some of these stories to reinforce your point?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#755

Post by ijiiijji1 » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:09 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…

In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#756

Post by deadbunny » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:11 AM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #745

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…

> This died with Facebook, YouTube and the non-editorial entertainment “news” and as a result we have anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and what not. Are you literally blaming YouTube for flat earthers in Denmark? The issue is that all regulators are human, and all humans have biases. No man is fit to play the censor.

> Are you literally blaming YouTube for flat earthers in Denmark?

Given the modern flat earthed movement was essentially grown on YouTube why wouldn't it effect people around the globe?

Is YouTube banned in Denmark?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#757

Post by netcan » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #102

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…

I agree. In terms of twitter's decision though.... This could either support their decision or the opposite.

Being the arbitar of truth is both an unavoidable demand and an impossible task for Twitter. Being a "public square" where politics is decided/discussed makes the implications of this problem especially acute. Fairness, whatever that means, is doubly important in democratic media.

Their detractors (and would-be regulators) will ultimately demand a "corporate policy" and judge them by their inconsistency... Why is this banned and not that? That is, a set of rules applied in all circumstances. Clear legible rules applied consistently is where cracks in theories like "truth and lies are easily discernable" inevitably appear.

It's an impossibly hard line to police. "This is a political ad," OTOH, is an easier judgement to make. Contraversial decisions would be tolerable too, deeming one and political but not another. East is probably an overstatement, but political/not-political is easier than truth/lies

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#758

Post by kolla » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:13 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…

Well they can print a full page lie and then the day after print a "sorry" at the bottom of the page. At least that's what they do here in Sweden.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#759

Post by gdy » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:17 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #733

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…

Denmark? You mean one of the least feminist countries in the developed world? Not to mention the openly racist narrative about immigrants in public media. Compared to other Scandinavian countries the Danish media is extremely toxic so not sure about portraiting it as a role model in "well informed and critical thinking".

You seem to be confusing lack of polically correct lies with anti-feminism and racism.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#760

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 9:20 AM UTC

Spare_account wrote: post #754

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been proven? Where? Because at least anecdotally, I recall reading so many stories of people who were talked out of a cult by having better information presented to them.

I think if you're pushing back on the GP to ask for evidence, it is intellectually dishonest to go ahead and make your own un-founded statements. Can _you_ link to some of these stories to reinforce your point?

Yeah, fine.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Remini#Scientology

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-be-opposed...

- https://www.self.com/story/from-anti-to-pro-vaccine

As far as challenges of the put your money where your mouth is kind, this one was pretty easy. So easy in fact, that you should take a moment to reflect on why you were so quick to get on a moral high-horse of burden of proof.