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

501–510 of 510 posts

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#501

Post by macspoofing »

ncallaway wrote: post #497
macspoofing wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 conversat…

>Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists.

Of course, because you made up that person. You made up the problem. Can you quantify how many people are being prevented for caucusing because they can't take a day off? What are we talking about here, apart from imaginary situations?

>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.

That is the argument. It's a big country with hundreds of millions of people. Lots of things are happening all the time. I'm sure a person broke their leg and couldn't caucus, or they found out they were pregnant and were distraught, or their mother recently died, or they couldn't take a day off work, or they don't care enough. So what?! There's an election every 2 years. There are local, state, and federal elections. If you miss one caucus because of life, it's not the end of the world, life happens. Go to the next one. Besides, it's a representative democracy, a single voter isn't dictating policy. Your neighbours and like-minded voters will be pushing for policies you care about. In Democracy, it takes a long time for people to be converted to a new position, so it takes years of grassroots organizing to enact change because every person has their own ideas.

Jesus Christ, you're making it seem like it's China where nobody is able to vote. Or as if it is a crime against humanity if a life event prevents some individual from participating at some political event - to the extent where we need to reform the entire system that worked well for hundreds of years. And by the way, life will happen no matter which way you redesign voting and democracy.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#502

Post by banads »

bhupy wrote: post #470
banads wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You cannot conflate persuasion with "buying votes". You don't think money is persuasive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Money, on its own, carries no persuasion whatsoever — unless you're bribing people to vote for someone (which is illegal[1]). In reality, money buys you a platform to sell your ideas, some people like those ideas, and THAT'S what results in votes. If you don't believe me, I'll start with anecdotes, and then close with data. Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she…

It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion.

As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money.

>Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.

Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powershift_(book)

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#503

Post by Talanes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #481
Talanes wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "branding" as if the names of BOTH parties don't stretch back to the early days of our democracy. If you object to a party including "Democratic" in their name, complain to Thomas Jefferson.

> You say "branding" as if the names of BOTH parties don't stretch back to the early days of our democracy Unless you are referring to the fact that it borrowed the unused half of the Democratic-Republican Party’s name after the Democratic Party had stopped using it, the Republican Party and its name only stretches back to the early days of the Republic by a very generous interpretation of “early”.

Why would I not be referring to that? It's literally where the name comes from. Are you trying to argue that it was separate group and therefore different? Because the original Democratic-Republicans are all dead regardless.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#504

Post by Talanes »

catalogia wrote: post #458
Talanes wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News with no political connotations is fluff.

That's myopic. There is all sorts of news, local news in particular, that has clear utility but tenuous political implications. Traffic and weather reports come to mind as clear examples.

Pay more attention to local politics. Traffic is VERY political.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#505

Post by bhupy »

banads wrote: post #502
bhupy wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money, on its own, carries no persuasion whatsoever — unless you're bribing people to vote for someone (which is illegal[1]). In reality, money buys you a platform to sell your ideas, some people like those ideas, and THAT'S what results in votes. If you don't believe me, I'll start with anecdotes, and then close with data. Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she…

It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion. As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money. >Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.…

> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line

Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point.

You also seem to keep citing books as though they are somehow equivalent to peer-reviewed academic research. Books aren't peer-reviewed, anyone can publish their opinions. Publishing houses are not staffed by true peers of the author, and are ill-equipped to check information. While books are good and important, they are not authoritative for the discussion at hand.

I provided more than enough academic research, statistical results, and empirical results in recent history. Unless you can do the same, your entire argument is based on your personal perception of the world.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#506

Post by [deleted] »

bhupy wrote: post #505
banads wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion. As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money. >Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.…

> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point. You also seem to keep citing books as though they are someh…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#507

Post by banads »

bhupy wrote: post #505
banads wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to think money is literally the only form of power and persuasion. As Alvin Toffler wrote in Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, and as evidenced by GOOG and FB, information and attention are the new money. >Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.…

> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point. You also seem to keep citing books as though they are someh…

>> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line

>Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point.

Nahhh; corporate media is very much concerned with money. No amount of academic research, statistical results, or empirical results can help you make sense of the world if you can't make assumptions based on common sense perception.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#508

Post by bhupy »

banads wrote: post #507
bhupy wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point. You also seem to keep citing books as though they are someh…

>> Those statistics dont factor in the absurd amount of attention liberal media paid to Trump throughout the election. His antics, and the attention it garners among their target market, are great for their bottom line >Yes, this has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the free press (or in your words "liberal media"). That's entirely my point. Nahhh; corporate media is very much concerned with money.…

> No amount of academic research, statistical results, or empirical results can help you make sense of the world if you can't make assumptions based on common sense perception

You have that COMPLETELY backwards. "Common sense" perception is extremely flawed because the perception of individual humans is limited by their own experiences and forms an incomplete picture of the truth. If your argument is that "common sense" (common according to who?) beats empirical data, it's no better than religion.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#509

Post by koheripbal »

tanilama wrote: post #457
adrianmonk wrote: post #373

I'd also love a feature that lets me block non-advertising political content. A lot of people like to use Facebook as a political soapbox. That's not what I want out of it. I want to stay connected to people, hear updates, socialize, etc. Some people push it so far that the solution of unfriending them is easy. But not everybody is so egregious that I want the nuclear option. (For example, relatives who are vocal abo…

What is political itself is political. Is LGBT political? Is support for immigration political. Is climate change political? Is COVID-19 political? Trying to be impartial here is a fool's game.

Believe it or not, there are times in my life where I'm not interested in hearing more about LGBT rights, immigration, covid-19, or climate change.

Re: Facebook to let users turn off political adverts

#510

Post by three_seagrass »

hatboat wrote: post #478
three_seagrass wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has ethical reprecussions on the news ecosystem because whichever keywords/mentions that Facebook dictates as political will be targeted by news organizations to avoid. These organizations will strip normal news of any political connotations which is frightening because the news, although mostly a pile of noise today, is supposed to have signals to keep democracies in line by design.

This is one potential outcome. Another is organisations will keep the same content (as this is what drives clicks and profitability), however change the language used to describe it. I would say this outcome is worse, as it leads to things like newspeak, muddying of definitions, and an increase in accusations of dogwhistling (accurate or otherwise). We may already be on this path, but it would be accelerated.

That's a cat an mouse game though - Facebook will react by also flagging the new definitions. The problem is the keywords themselves, but the act of Facebook banning them.
Post reply on HN