Twitter to ban political advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#981

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 2:37 AM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #952

TeMPOraL wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I generally speak like this and find it causes problems with others because they view this as a weak form of speech. It makes you appear uncertain, which should be a good thing, but our society seems to value undeserved confidence far above cautious uncertainty.

I find it helpful to spend a bit more cycles on keeping track of audience and a bit fewer on perfect conveyance of certainty levels.

Once you've set the bar re: certainty for a particular discourse neighborhood, you can just make claims at that level thereafter without feeling dishonest. As long as you're sensitive to cases where others may have joined without enough context to know that you're out on a limb.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#982

Post by notSupplied » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

nidificate wrote: post #963

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…

Is it easier to corrupt one institution or five?

Looking at how fast the Republican Senate became supplicant to Trump, the separation did not turn out so "separate" after all due to the concentration of parties.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#983

Post by diogenescynic » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

xkjkls wrote: post #226

diogenescynic wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between opinion and facts/lies. Opinion is fine, but when someone is spreading an objective lie (the earth is flat!)... that's where it seems like this is a cop out for Facebook to pretend they can't get involved due to "free speech". Sure, let people share opinions, but not lies and misinformation.

Who should adjudicate what is an is not a lie? Twitter’s response is basically “we don’t want to be the ones to do that”

Same way it works for newspapers and tv and radio.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#984

Post by z3phyr » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 9:04 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #953

z3phyr wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just realized that the USA does not have civil services. Like your elected officials can appoint random people for random things. Anyway, a good election commision can be formed by pooling career civil servants, equal representatives from each political party, a bench of retired judges elected by the Senate for a unit time. The commision can not make any policy decision. All they can do is ensure that the elections…

> A democracy where all candidates are liars is no better than Russian democracy where there are no candidates In every democracy "all candidates are liars", if you call a liar anybody whose views can be contradicted by somebody else. Most of what candidates talk about aren't scientific facts, they are opinions and projections and moral judgements. Even about scientific facts there is considerable disagreement - what…

> Views contradict from each other

That's a good thing. The views on governance policy can differ. I have no problem with those things.

I am talking about objective truths like Earth being flat, incorrect dates, misinformation in speech etc

There are grey areas here too, example being religion, and I concede that area becomes needlessly murky. Having said that, it needs to be discussed

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#985

Post by richmarr » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 10:40 AM UTC

buboard wrote: post #858

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 world s autocratic countries (russia china turkey etc) don’t rely on fabricated news, they rely on hiding the truth and placing a biased spin on it. They know that outright lies will actually harm their image.

Autocratic countries like... ones that ignore and undermine their own judicial system and appoint family members to positions of power?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#986

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 10:53 AM UTC

mkr-hn wrote: post #853

This will fail the same way "real name" policies fail. Someone has to draw a line on what politics (or a real name) is for the purpose of the policy, and that's going to cut off a lot of useful ads. For example: An ad for free HIV screening services is political by certain perspectives.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#987

Post by sacrificedcapon » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 12:37 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…

1) Right. And the holocaust was perpetrated by germans who were elected by citizens in a fair and open democracy.

The extermination of the native americans were perpetrated by americans who were elected by citizens in a fair and open democracy.

You seems to have a naive understanding of democracy. People always forget that the nazis won elections. People forget that the greatest evils ( genocide, atomic bombings, etc ) were all perpetrated by democracies.

There is a reason why democracy is called tyranny of the mob.

2) Just because you say they are "transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world" is meaningless. There is nothing inherently good about being "progressive". Once again that is a naive understanding of progessiveness. There was a time when nazis, communists, etc were viewed as progressives. But most importantly, just because they are "competent" today doesn't mean they are eternally competent. You do realize governments, judiciaries, etc can change right?

3) That's because they are filthy rich due centuries of european colonization.

4) Are they?

> But besides those things, you're right. It's just like the situation in Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. /s

It is just like that. Do you know how I know? Saudi, chinese, russians, etc all "self-congratulatory" excuses for why they need censorship. Just like you did.

To you, denmark may be heaven on earth, but to me denmark is nothing but a nazi collabotor who got off easy after ww2. Also, if denmark is so saintly why are the inuits in greenland ( the land you stole from them ) doing so horribly?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#988

Post by sacrificedcapon » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 12:49 PM UTC

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #711

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…

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…

[flagged]

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#989

Post by jcranberry » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 1:49 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #858

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 world s autocratic countries (russia china turkey etc) don’t rely on fabricated news, they rely on hiding the truth and placing a biased spin on it. They know that outright lies will actually harm their image.

That's a few autocratic countries. Such a statement is obviously not true in general. For starters you have dictatorships which have been based upon absurd and shameless lies. North Korea currently, Haiti under Papa Doc, Turkmenistan under Niyazov. In addition I'd imagine hiding news is the first line of defense, but if that fails none of these autocratic governments are not above lying (and I'd bet you find the dictators of those countries have lied many times when it suited them, if evidence is available).

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#990

Post by jcranberry » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

tekkk wrote: post #931

spunker540 wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Trump is in a world of his own, but most often the “lies” are not lies to the speaker or the speaker’s fans. For example Obama’s “if you like your plan you can keep it” regarding Obamacare. It turned out not to be 100% true. To Democrats he was well-intentioned and over-optimistic and couldn’t deliver his promise (probably due to Republican obstructionism) while Republicans had always considered that a lie. If…

From what I heard about Obamacare it seemed a quite crappy deal indeed, and not really criticized properly by the Democrats. It's sad that either party can't acknowledge their own errors and have to just tout their own version of reality to make it true for their supporters. And about lying, there are degrees of lying that can be established. The earth is not flat even though some believe it to be so, to state the op…

The problem with the political culture in Washington isn't the rhetorical war. It's politicians obsession with being reelected. The culture is that no indignity is beneath you if it's for the sake of reelection. Lindsey Graham was once known alongside John McCain as being a RINO by partisans, 'Republican in name only'. Now he acts like Trump's dog on 99& of issues.

The reason? So he can be more influential on that 1% of issues he cares most about. If he doesn't get influence on that 1% (like we saw with Syria) then he breaks with Trump, because he has a bottom line: the set of issues he wants to influence. This is true for all politicians. They have a political calculus where they are willing to sacrifice legislation or points in certain areas for the sake of being able to affect legislation in most other areas. Functionally this means that politicians do things like accept big campaign donations in exchange for going easy on a certain sector. I believe most politicians want to do what they think is best for America, but that comes with a single constraint--that they're the ones accomplishing it. And that comes with a hefty cost.