51–60 of 73 posts
Or maybe there's a better solution, but at least let's agree on the transparency problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adverts are not free speech. Public service announcements on billboards might be, like the band trying to promote their underground concert in town, or an association promoting a cultural event. But you can't put those in the same basket as big corporations paying multiple k$ for premium attention-grabbing spots with fancy graphics to make you dream of things you don't need.
Where is the line drawn, in your opinion? How do we objectively tell the difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? And dont you sort of know the population skews a certain way given the platform you choose (guessing quora differs from bing which differs from coupons in the mail)? Restated, and this might be so off base and tangential that maybe it's not worth answering, but if you were say....something reasonable like a dentist. And you were fairly far along in your practice and had tenure. Let's say in that case your "list"…
I actually have a subspecialty in targeting narrow business verticals, and yeah, the algorithm is better 95% of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme Court to reverse its own decision just to start so I don't think it'll happen, but it's good to know there is a simple, implementable solution that would fix our problems but that we will ignore so the interests of a few can be placed ahead of the many. Hardl…
Then only billionaires will win office. The old rule of a low monetary cap per house hold was the start of a good system. I'd say extend that further into a slightly higher cap overall but make it all political donations and not just per candidate. Allowing unlimited dark money into super pacs is where it fell apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of false information? I don't trust a single media outlet on Earth, but curious to see your examples.
How can anyone communicate believable information to you if you already don’t trust anyone? Regardless, I’d suggest reading Descartes or some philosophy of logic. You can’t trust everybody, but there are high value sources out there. The media are largely ok.
I was just setting that up to make it clear I was asking for evidence out of curiosity rather than passive aggressive skepticism. Generally if a media outlet reports something as a hard fact, I do believe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw people express skepticism before this stuff, that is part of why this is effective. It partly depends upon there being low trust in "sources of truth". Want to know the funny thing? The people that eroded the trust are now the ones complaining the loudest about the results. Also, why does sex sell? Because people desire sex.
Yep, that’s what keeps me up at night. I’ve had family express their individual preference for sources with zero credibility or authority over sources from medical doctors/phds/other reputable sources. They’re predisposed to believe manipulative stuff and prefer it!
"There’s evidence of really quite disturbing experiments on American voters, manipulating them with fear-based messaging, targeting the most vulnerable, that seems to be continuing. This is an entire global industry that’s out of control" Lets be clear this is the explicit purpose of the advertising and public relations industry. 1. Create Art (writing, multimedia etc...) intended to influence viewer 2. Distribute Ar…
As long as free speech is considered important, ads aren't going anywhere (note: I consider free speech important). Even if you ban directives from ads (Buy Product Now!) ads can be reduced to simple voicing of opinions on a media channel ("I love product X, you'd love it too, I'm sure!"), which is what most ads are anyways - emotional persuasion, not the old style "Johnny's Canned Beans are the most nutritious!" fro…
"There’s evidence of really quite disturbing experiments on American voters, manipulating them with fear-based messaging, targeting the most vulnerable, that seems to be continuing. This is an entire global industry that’s out of control" Lets be clear this is the explicit purpose of the advertising and public relations industry. 1. Create Art (writing, multimedia etc...) intended to influence viewer 2. Distribute Ar…
"There’s evidence of really quite disturbing experiments on American voters, manipulating them with fear-based messaging, targeting the most vulnerable, that seems to be continuing. This is an entire global industry that’s out of control" Lets be clear this is the explicit purpose of the advertising and public relations industry. 1. Create Art (writing, multimedia etc...) intended to influence viewer 2. Distribute Ar…
How about banning donations, bribes, and money in all lobbying. No money, no ads. No ads, no manipulation. At this point, it would literally require the Supreme Court to reverse its own decision just to start so I don't think it'll happen, but it's good to know there is a simple, implementable solution that would fix our problems but that we will ignore so the interests of a few can be placed ahead of the many. Hardl…
If you want to "entice" an official, you don't offer them cash. You offer someone in their family a great job. You buy the plot of land next to their house and keep it open and undeveloped. You back away from that deal that you're competing for against the major company in their district. You reach out to friends, colleagues, and vendors in their district and encourage them to support the other guy. You let them know you have a job open for someone exactly like them that opens up whenever they need. You get them a home loan at a fantastic rate not available on the open market. You make a call to your alma mater and recommend their kid or niece get into that amazing university with a great scholarship.
* Those are all real situations in the last ~10-15 years. None of them involved donating to a politician.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can anyone communicate believable information to you if you already don’t trust anyone? Regardless, I’d suggest reading Descartes or some philosophy of logic. You can’t trust everybody, but there are high value sources out there. The media are largely ok.
I didn't articulate my view on that fully; I do spend a lot of time thinking about epistemology and logic, and I trust a lot of people (though I'm not very trustful of most large corporations). I was just setting that up to make it clear I was asking for evidence out of curiosity rather than passive aggressive skepticism. Generally if a media outlet reports something as a hard fact, I do believe it.