221–230 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.
Why should any individual be given outsize voice in a democracy, if not by amplification from many others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why people build movements, why activism is a thing. Money shortcuts all of that and gives undue voice to people with the most money.
Is activism so pure? The activists I see have nice signs and people protesting during business hours when the rest of us are working. Printing good signs costs money. There is big money behind a lot of activists, just better hidden.
Are political ads labeled / presented any differently than regular ads on Facebook? The main issue I have with this is how Facebook strategically blends advertisements (which is often political during election cycles) together with organic non-sponsored content. Anecdote: My 84 year old grandmother spends 1-2 hours per day scrolling through Facebook's news feed. When I watch her do it, she pays ZERO attention to why…
In official capacity (under oath) it's illegal for us to lie to them. In their official capacity (under oath of office) they get to lie all day long, straight through their teeth. CEOs can't defraud their shareholders, but politicians can do so every day of their lives.
>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…
How is paid speech not free speech? The paid aspect is just a means to an end. Money itself should not be seen as speech, but speech that costs money is still speech. On a basic level, any self publishing on any form of media has a nonzero cost and you buy some service from some third party eventually. If free speech applied to you but not the person who supplied you a platform, then that freedom only exists in theor…
We want free speech, not a lawless society. I hope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to pro…
Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.
Zuck himself, ironically, has helped create that situation by deliberately reducing organic reach to force people to pay to be heard.
This is a cynical ploy for money on Zuck's/Facebook's part. If they really cared about free speech, they wouldn't hobble the organic reach of political actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a long link, so the part in question. Note this is from a taped pitch from the president of Cambridge Analytica, this isn't hearsay, it is from the horse's mouth: > Nix moved on to pitch his next case study – a youth mobilisation campaign. Again, all is not as it seems. “Trinidad is a very interesting case history of how we look at problems,” Nix said. “Trinidad's tiny – it's 1.3 million people – but almost ex…
You have to keep in mind that you're not listening to a journalistic expose of the Trinidad election -- you are listening to a sales pitch from Cambridge Analytica, which has all the motivation to vastly exaggerate their influence. I've been unable to find any reference to this "Do So" campaign anywhere except for Cambridge Analytica bragging about it. Furthermore as described this was an old-fashioned campaign, whic…
Yes, this was primarily a physical campaign, but it drives home the point of how these people work. And how they DID work in 2016 as well with respect to targeted advertising on Facebook.
Watch the movie if you haven't, this stuff was well researched by various reporters. It isn't perfect but it certainly shows that what we have now is not tenable if we want to maintain a democracy.
>Ads can be an important part of voice - especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates It's interesting how hard Zuck is working to try and conflate the idea of 'free speech' with paid advertisements. To put it another way, if advertising on Facebook is part of my free speech, surely Zuck must run my adverts despite the fact I have no mone…
But the same holds true of the general use of public airwaves. If they are owned or controlled by a select group of people who sit on the boards, their voice and preferences are going to be a lot more powerful than your average joe on the street.
But the thing is that the whole premise of free speech is the belief that sunlight is best disinfectant for bad ideas. We have this belief (whether warranted or not, though I'd argue it is) that _utlimately_ we will arrive at the good ideas and reject the bad ideas through public discourse. In other words, we have faith, from a holistic standpoint, that the polity will decide issues based on the substance of the ideas presented to them in the political arena (I understand well that this isn't the case in specific instances nor in every period of time, but it's still the belief broadly speaking). That being the case, increased reach - where reach simply = number of eyeballs you shove your message in front of - doesn't mean anything per se. The people who participate in the democratic process and public discourse still must sift through the ideas to determine which are good and which are bad.
Maybe the counterargument to my point is "well, yes, we do believe that ideas are ultimately what win out, but if the candidates with less money cannot reach an audience, then you never get to a debate in the first place."
I guess I do hear that argument and I'm unsure.
I think where this gets complicated is when you start to think not just in terms of hard cash and spending on political ads. What about when media outlets and other organizations are dedicated, for whatever reason, to a certain candidate. For example, when TYT clearly favors a candidate and spends an entire election season praising them, etc - should that be allowed? In some ways those are resources being used as well to increase the reach of a candidate. It's time, money, staff, resources, etc. It seems to me that it just gets very dicey when you look at things just in terms of cash. You end up having to effectively try to centralize the whole process and make sure that everyone's reach is exactly even, which just isn't possible without massive government intervention and coercion and flagrant violations of free speech. I just don't see how this works out well in the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. If a group wants to post on social media, they can just post on social media. Ads increase the reach of those with money. That is exactly what they do and nothing more. Why would we want to further amplify the voice of those who have money? The fact that the cause is the abolition of X or the support of Y is a non sequitur, in either case it is the viewpoint of someone with the money to pro…
Just because I’m subscribed to someone on social media doesn’t mean they show up in my feed. That change happened long ago. It’s only guaranteed to show up if they pay.