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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#841

Post by azangru »

dariosalvi78 wrote: post #822
azangru wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know what works? De-platforming them. Not giving them a voice in the public discourse Many people (me included) find this approach very unpalatable because of how inherently authoritarian it is. (Ironically, this suggestion often comes from the same people who are concerned by how underrepresented some groups are in the public discourse and how the voices of those groups are not heard, and want to artificially…

Wait, de platforming is very different than censorship. Examples: Should climate change deniers be given the same space as actual science? Should communists (to not only focus on far right) be invited to every serious talk about economy?

> Should ... be given the same space

> Should ... be invited to every serious talk

Of course not; but "inviting to every X", or "giving the same space" is very different from disallowing X to share the same space (especially if said client change deniers or communists are prepared to have a conversation using roughly the same epistemological tools as actual scientists). There is no onus on platform providers to ensure that every opinion gets the same attention as others; my argument is that they merely let others be.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#842

Post by sjy »

Xelbair wrote: post #800
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…

>>> This is such blatant and obvious nonsense. You philosophize on basis of the assumption that central authorities ('government') by definition cannot be trusted, and we should therefore be wary of anything that reeks of centralized decision making. This should be basic assumption of the all laws. Remember early 20th century and legal takeovers of governments by warmongering maniacs in Europe? It was legal, there wa…

> What prevents this centralized body from making politically motivated decisions?

An established institutional culture of apolitical service, reinforced by respect for those who uphold it and consequences for those who violate it. The kind of thing that the U.S. still expects of its military, judiciary and public service, and the kind of thing that is corroded by political leaders showing contempt for it.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#843

Post by jlg23 »

jaimeyap wrote: post #827
yoavm wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But these really aren't the type of lies that people consider fake news. Yeah, all the things you've written are facts, and their interpretations are what we call opinions. I agree with you that all of these statements, since they're true, should be allowed without a question. People still need to think and be critical. I just took a look at a long list of lies by your current President. It has nothing to do with fac…

This. The march to authoritarianism accelerates when people accept the meme that the truth is unknowable. So they simply accept the reality put forth by the autocrat. The most basic kind of truths are facts. We at least need to agree on those as best we can first. And then apply critical thinking on the the squishier stuff on top.

> The most basic kind of truths are facts.

Except for that for a lot of "facts", according to Rousseau, we already have 4 truths: what you say, what I say, what we agree upon and what really happened.

So, while the pursuit of truth is important, I'd argue that respect towards each other even when we cannot agree is the most important thing.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#844

Post by jpindar »

silvester23 wrote: post #775
ralusek wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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. When I said "working out", I wasn't talking so much about which effects free speech is having (although that is a question…

Being attacked on Twitter by the president would be the best thing that ever happened to me, or to any blogger or news site.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#845

Post by vonmoltke »

krageon wrote: post #789
Matty1992 wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Have any examples to back this up? I dont even necessarily disagree with your original argument, but can we get away from the Europe vs America debate that always pops up on this board as if they can be compared in a reasonable way? Europe is made up of…

The "America vs Europe debate" only ever pops up when an American comes into a thread telling everyone how wrong they are. As you say it is ironic because the position that there is one "Europe" to compare the US to is one that can only be formed in an environment of ignorance. Asking why was at some point useful, but given the pernicious nature of these discussions and the vehemence with which they are repeated we h…

> The "America vs Europe debate" only ever pops up when an American comes into a thread telling everyone how wrong they are.

European posters do this all the time in health care discussions.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#846

Post by sjy »

sterlind wrote: post #767
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…

Would this centralized body extend to regulating bloggers and YouTube personalities? It's tricky to draw a line based on scope - influencers and personalities will grow ever more popular, and conspiracy rabbitholes will only grow more decentralized. How would you deal with foreign media that violates the laws? You'd either have to permit them - which opens up the country to foreign meddling, since they can and have s…

Media regulations do exist, and are more robust outside the United States. Usually the answer to your question about bloggers and YouTube personalities is that they are ignored by the regulators of the professional media, but may attract police attention in extreme cases under anti-vilification laws that would likely be unconstitutional in the U.S., eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan (UK), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Cottrell (AU).

I don't see the problem with subjecting foreign media to the same or even stricter laws. Yes, it's difficult to enforce the law against foreign nations, especially your friends, so enforcement often doesn't happen. That doesn't mean that foreign meddling ought to be made legal, which would be a step backwards in view of laws like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_....

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#847

Post by goodluckchuck »

moltensodium wrote: post #10

Jack's last tweet in this thread: >paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle Ignoring the technology aspects of this for a minute: he's basically arguing directly against the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling, which I find interesting. If we're going to argue that money is too corrupting in online political…

That is the popular understanding of Citizens United ("CU"), but "money is speech" had been the law for a long time before that. People have the right to "assemble and petition for redress." CU just said ~"given that people speak with their wallets, and people have a right to assemble, do people have the right to assemble and speak with their wallets at the same time?" So the Court said yeah. Really very innocuous. It's the side-issues that people are foisting onto CU.

Like, wealth disparity. Maybe the problem isn't that people can buy MAGA hats and radio spots, but that a small group have such a large percentage of the money they can easily buy "all" the ads. The way to fix that isn't to restrict how people speak and use their wealth, but to address the wealth disparity itself.

Then the other huge but undecided side-issue is the fact that corporate law allows companies to keep most all their info secret, money, members, etc. So when you combine CU-money with the "dark"-laws regarding corporate governance you get dark money. Again, the way to fix that is to address corporate disclosures.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#848

Post by sjy »

ralusek wrote: post #710
CraigJPerry wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Why not? It’s pure narrative without conclusion. another source, in this case the ny times, would be equally free to publish the statement: “Vice President Biden was overseeing American policy toward Ukraine at the time, and he did push for the removal of the country’s top prosecutor, who was seen as corrupt or ineffectual by the United States and Western European governments. But there is no evidence he did so…

You guys are disagreeing on facts, or at least entering muddy territory. > The prosecutor said he was forced out for leading a corruption probe into Hunter Biden's company > there is no evidence he did so to benefit Hunter Biden

In addition to the point made by the sibling comment, these facts are consistent with an attack on Joe Biden for having an apparent conflict of interest, even if there was no evidence that he intentionally, corruptly used his power to benefit his son. (If he did, would you expect there to be any evidence?) Ethical public officials are expected to avoid apparent conflicts of interest.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#850

Post by TeMPOraL »

jlg23 wrote: post #843
jaimeyap wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The march to authoritarianism accelerates when people accept the meme that the truth is unknowable. So they simply accept the reality put forth by the autocrat. The most basic kind of truths are facts. We at least need to agree on those as best we can first. And then apply critical thinking on the the squishier stuff on top.

> The most basic kind of truths are facts. Except for that for a lot of "facts", according to Rousseau, we already have 4 truths: what you say, what I say, what we agree upon and what really happened. So, while the pursuit of truth is important, I'd argue that respect towards each other even when we cannot agree is the most important thing.

Maybe we need to start teaching people to habitually attach provenance and confidence information to every fact (really: belief) they report, at least as much as practically possible?

"Iraq had WMDs in 2000s" != "I strongly believe Iraq had WMDs in 2000s" != "I find it plausible that Iraq might have had WMDs in 2000s" != "According to that UN report, Iraq had WMDs in 2000s" != "According to NYT, which quotes that UN report, Iraq had WMDs", etc.

A lot of problems are caused by people who say "X" when they should say "I strongly believe X", or "I think I read somewhere that X", or "I'm not sure, but I think X".

Post reply on HN