Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 510 posts

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#491

Post by komali2 »

macspoofing wrote: post #483
komali2 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. Berate is a strong word to describe what I read imo. I think it was more a suggestion to put one's self in another's shoes. If you believe for example that a caucus is not too high a burden of voting for anyone in America because credit card debt exists, I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the strugg…

>Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. I dread the dystopia when you sent your party affiliation on your phone and you never even have to think about pesky things like engagement, and people, and politicians, and elections as your phone will be automatically be polled at election time for your vote. This is a democratic dystopia. To me, this is democracy: https://youtu.be/FRtp-ooeC…

> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time.

This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision.

Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? Oops, evicted and no income. Job hunting while homeless.

The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice.

Also, I disagree entirely with your premise that a caucus is what a democracy looks like. No consideration for mute or deaf constituents. No consideration for introverts. "But if they cared enough." Sure. And if people didn't do crime, there'd be no crime. The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. We can sit on the sidelines and make pointless statements about the ethical inferiority of people that don't want to spend 8 hours screaming at eachother to get their vote registered, or, we can acknowledge reality and build our systems around it.

A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#492

Post by komali2 »

macspoofing wrote: post #488
komali2 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability (as well as the accessibility resources necessary) to participate in a caucus. Until we can achieve that kind of safety net, though, I think it's important that ALL forms of engaging with democracy are available to ALL Americans. The political parties get away with far too much shenanigans imo.

>If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability "Time" and "financial stability" is not an absolute measure, but is relative to your level of 'care' about the issue. I don't have 'time' to visit someone I don't care about. I make time to visit someone I do. Someone of modest means who has to work many hours a week and raise kids, won't have time (or 'financial ability') to attend a po…

> As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?

That the choice exists for others doesn't automatically mean it exists for all.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#493

Post by ncallaway »

macspoofing wrote: post #489
ncallaway wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's always a trade-off I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable. However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited. I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

>I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off f…

> Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big.

I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern:

I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me.

But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.

---

To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#494

Post by macspoofing »

komali2 wrote: post #491
macspoofing wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. I dread the dystopia when you sent your party affiliation on your phone and you never even have to think about pesky things like engagement, and people, and politicians, and elections as your phone will be automatically be polled at election time for your vote. This is a democratic dystopia. To me, this is democracy: https://youtu.be/FRtp-ooeC…

> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing…

>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision.

No it's not. Don't strawman.

> I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway?

This is a good example of why it's so frustrating to debate this. You're engaging in creative writing and storytelling. You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired. You just made her up to buttress your point. Are there working single moms at caucuses - you bet there are. Caucus are also organized and run by caring activists who are sensitive to constituent's needs - do you think they don't attempt to be as accessible as they can? Is that a major issue that affects a significant portion of would-be attendees? You don't know, you just assume it is.

>Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice.

No kidding it isn't an actual choice, because you just made it up and put it us a false choice. Homelessness is not dominated by people looking for work and unable to find any (and for some reason not having access to various social programs) and therefore being prevented from attending a caucus meeting. Chronic, long-term homelessness is almost solely a result of drug addiction and/or mental illness.

>The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote.

More making things up. You don't know that. You have a stereotype of working people and you're using your imagination to think of all the ways your caricatures of working people may be shut out democracy. But you don't actually know if this in fact a real problem or just something you think is a real problem. And why wouldn't they be represented well by their neighbours if some specific individual had personal commitments that prevented them from attending?

I get why you're asking me to use my imagination - because you have no other connection to the people you purport to fight for.

>A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.

Says who?

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#495

Post by macspoofing »

ncallaway wrote: post #493
macspoofing wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off f…

> Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern: I actually…

>If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.

Urgh. This is the same creative writing exercise that another poster here is engaging in. I'll tell you the same thing, I told him. You don't know that person. You don't know if that person exists. You don't know if that is actually a problem that affects even a tiny minority of would-be attendees. What you're doing is creating a caricature of working people and engaging in an imagination exercise of seeing how your caricatures would respond in hypothetical situations that don't actually exist ... because maybe you have no other connection to those working people? I don't know.

I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. The best I can do is just say that you did that.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#496

Post by macspoofing »

komali2 wrote: post #492
macspoofing wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability "Time" and "financial stability" is not an absolute measure, but is relative to your level of 'care' about the issue. I don't have 'time' to visit someone I don't care about. I make time to visit someone I do. Someone of modest means who has to work many hours a week and raise kids, won't have time (or 'financial ability') to attend a po…

> As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that? That the choice exists for others doesn't automatically mean it exists for all.

It should imply to you that there are reasons other than barriers that come out of your imagination that is preventing people from caucusing ... like they don't want to. They aren't interested.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#497

Post by ncallaway »

macspoofing wrote: post #495
ncallaway wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern: I actually…

>If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. Urgh. This is the same creative writing exercise that another poster here is engaging in. I'll tell you the same thing, I told him. You don't know that person. You don't know if that person exists. You don't know if that is actually a problem that affects even a…

Me:

> I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

You:

> I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist.

I don't think I just made this problem up.

https://www.kunr.org/post/what-rights-do-employees-have-cauc...

Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists. If you think there exists no such person, we're not going to productively carry the conversation forward.

If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that.

But if your argument is that flat out no such person exists, then we can stop discussing it.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#498

Post by komali2 »

macspoofing wrote: post #494
komali2 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing…

>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. No it's not. Don't strawman. > I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? This is a good example of why it's so fr…

> You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired

I actually do - my own mom, when I was growing up. I'm talking about my experience.

But hey, don't believe me, here's a journalist that went ahead and got a couple families on the record that are in exactly the situation I just described: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25852784-evicted

> More making things up. You don't know that.

I do know that. That's the reality we live in. Make it easier to vote from home and more people vote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/letting-people-vote-a...

The state of American family finance is far more dire than you seem to be aware: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-are-just...

> Says who?

Says me, with as much earnestness as you say with your desire for a caucus. Except my method, the evidence shows, franchises more Americans. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument by the way, you can say you prefer a caucus even though it would disenfranchise some Americans. I don't know if that exactly describes a democracy though.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#499

Post by komali2 »

macspoofing wrote: post #496
komali2 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that? That the choice exists for others doesn't automatically mean it exists for all.

It should imply to you that there are reasons other than barriers that come out of your imagination that is preventing people from caucusing ... like they don't want to. They aren't interested.

Sure, I bet there are lots of people that aren't interested! Me, for example, and I'm rich as sin. I'd rather pick up trash on the side of the road with that time - and I do have ample free time.

Doesn't change the fact that there are still Americans that don't have that freedom. Though I wish we all did!

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#500

Post by ogre_codes »

pezezin wrote: post #459
ogre_codes wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also love a feature that lets me block non-advertising political content. I would just prefer an option where I only saw content my friends actually took the time to post themselves. I don't want politics, memes, or other trendy bullshit, just their words, pictures, or even links they personally took the time to clip and paste. If I want news or entertainment, I can find that myself, but Facebook is currently t…

I totally agree with you. I think what's killing Facebook are the endless reposts, just show me original content, please. I was working on a script to hide shared posts, but it broke after the last update. Maybe I need to fix it and publish it as a browser extension?

> Maybe I need to fix it and publish it as a browser extension?

This sounds way to time consuming to me for way too little reward.

Post reply on HN