Twitter to ban political advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#831

Post by lr4444lr » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:52 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…

Ask the Uighurs in China how well a centralized authority is "protecting" their speech and beliefs as a minority.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#832

Post by mnky9800n » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:04 PM 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…

Information flows freely across borders. I'm not sure it can be regulated unless the borders stop mattering as much.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#833

Post by criddell » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:08 PM UTC

ianamartin wrote: post #640

criddell wrote: post #225

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…

It's real hard to find a reason to be upset with a blanket ban on political ads on Twitter. You can still say what you want to say, but Twitter isn't going to accept money to help you promote your message. Good for them.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#834

Post by matwood » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:10 PM 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…

The problem is that a centralized body immediately becomes too powerful. The body itself would need to be limited in scope with other outside checks and balances.

SCOTUS is close to one of these centralized bodies you speak of, and they purposely only deal with cases that have gone through every other avenue. And even then, they are not trying to determine truth, but only fit the verdict within the existing body of law. I would prefer less decisions being decided in this manner.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#835

Post by roenxi » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:12 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #726

sacrificedcapon wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except that (1) The Danes who wrote those laws were elected by the citizens in a fair and open democracy. (2) The enforcement (presumably) falls on their judicial system. One that is transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world. (3) That Denmark has one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world. (4) That Danes are free to pursue information elsewhere (as in the entire internet) if they don't li…

Denmark has a population of 6 million people with a homogeneous culture, ethnic composition (87% Danish descent, [0]) and physical location. Many problems are going to be faced to all Danes simultaneously.

It is much easier to construct a shared agreement on what is true in such an environment. That they are a democracy is less of an issue than the fact they all face a very similar environment and can probably agree with each other on what the truth is because they are all looking at the same thing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#836

Post by tempodox » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:15 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #766

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…

> That is a supremely American way of looking at the world. It's based in European, and more specifically, British Enlightenment thinking, the apotheosis of which (with regard to freedom of speech) is On Liberty[0] by John Stuart Mill, an Englishman. To quote: > THE TIME, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrann…

> ...document describing the markup rules

https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#837

Post by matwood » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:16 PM UTC

devilmoon wrote: post #821

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…

But from what I've been taught in school, news articles should always aim to state only the facts as they have happened without trying to draw conclusions, show only one side of the story or inject the bias of the reporter. As long as you have journalists and editors able to do their jobs, stating facts doesn't become an exercise in pushing your narrative as you describe but simple reporting of "what happened" or "wh…

News is a lot like statistics. Just by which facts I show (and don't show), and how I show them I can push the reader to a certain conclusion. Even the wording matters. A great example is reporting on the stock market. "Market plunges 500 points!!", but the reality is that's ~1.8% and barely a blip.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#838

Post by roenxi » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

cf498 wrote: post #734

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…

>You don't discredit anti-vaxxers with speech. Same with flat-earthers. Same with fascists. You know what works? De-platforming them. I would like a source on that. Dont take it personal, but I dont see how this is anything but tanky signaling to feel better about yourself. Here in Germany people were rather active in making sure the new far right party AFD wasnt given a platform. By now they are very close to being…

In summary, if you don't explain to people what the flaws are in their ideas and arguments are they may not ever discover them.

Deplatforming makes it look like their is no logical or moral counter. It is not an explanation of why the ideas are bad. Platforming and debunking is reasonably likely to expose bad ideas as weak.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#839

Post by sjy » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

chr1 wrote: post #771

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…

Why do you think the centralized body would say that to fox and not to cnn? After all if there are about 50% people thinking that fox spreads lies and 50% people thinking cnn spreads lies the decision of centralized body could go any way. It is better to let everyone speak and everyone to make their own decisions

Why would you expect someone calling for tighter regulation of the media to give a free pass to CNN? I would expect regulators to be a thorn in the side of any commercial television network. They're in the business of selling entertainment for profit, not upholding community standards of truth, decency, etc.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#840

Post by ashelmire » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 12:21 PM 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…

> I have no idea how to regulate it though, but I think we need to do something.

Why should it be treated any differently than other media?

What we need is a return of the Fairness Doctrine in the US (and something similar to the EU) and application of the policy to social media advertising and news outlets. It won't stop foreign psy-ops, but it will stop a lot of the internal-originating lies and deception.