We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them • Hacker News Board

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#121

Post by phd514 » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:42 AM UTC

dgudkov wrote: post #113

hadrien01 wrote: post #33

The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…

I have a better idea -- every should contain (at least in metadata) public information about the organization who bought it. For political ads, there additionally should be the price paid for the ad.

The former of your suggestions is already required for most political advertising: https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/spec_notice_broch...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#122

Post by kingofhdds » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:42 AM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.

>It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US.

In practical applications, EU countries do not place FoS to the same position of unalienable right as it is in the US. So, not "as much".

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#123

Post by softwaredoug » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:42 AM UTC

cle wrote: post #114

andyv wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to run for office, how else do you tell the voters what you want to do, and why they should vote for you?

Is this a serious comment? How do we communicate without advertisements? This is depressing.

Why is political speech a different category than other forms of speech?

Think of the plausible scenario of a certain Presidents FEC deciding friendly speech isn’t “political” (it’s “patriotic”!) But critical speech is clearly political and should be regulated.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#124

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:47 AM UTC

lolpython wrote: post #120

ceejayoz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes it more of a free speech issue for the government to be meddling in its employer/employee interactions, not less .

The government doesn't meddle in the NFL. The NFL issued the bans

That's plainly false.

"NFL execs admit pressure from Trump a factor on anthem policy": https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/24/nfl-execs-a...

"Trump says U.S. should change tax law to punish NFL": http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20978787/president-donald...

"The report found the Department of Defense had spent $6.8 million on what they called 'paid patriotism' between 2012 and 2015. This money was spread out among 50 pro teams from the NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, MLS and others.": https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl-national-anthem-trump-...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#125

Post by shard972 » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

hadrien01 wrote: post #33

The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…

The best solution is to pass an amendment to the constitution to adjust free speech exceptions?

If thats the best solution, I don't think i want to know what the worse one is...

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#126

Post by kingofhdds » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:48 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #107

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

I too love idealism, but I have to wonder just how broken things have to get before people begin to accept that a thing that sounds good in theory just doesn't work right in the real world? In theory, unregulated free markets are always self-correcting. In theory, socialism works great. In theory, uninhibited free speech is one of the pillars of a free society. So if we start seeing torrential downpour of misleading…

In practice, meanwhile, FS works well enough.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#127

Post by softwaredoug » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #117

andyv wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to run for office, how else do you tell the voters what you want to do, and why they should vote for you?

Debates, press interviews and conferences, town halls, canvassing...

The flaw is that someone has to decide what speech is “political” or not. That person can prioritize their sides speech above competitors, by denying others a comparable platform.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#128

Post by tylerhou » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

Implicated wrote: post #75

evgen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, things just refer to him as fbid 4.

Who are 1, 2 and 3?

Test accounts which ended up getting deleted before (presumably) auth worked.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#129

Post by softwaredoug » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.

The landscape has swung heavily to smaller donors dominating fundraising.

The $5 I gave Beto doesn’t mean he’s going to let me dictate anything he does in his political career.

Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them

#130

Post by lozaning » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 1:58 AM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #89

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…

>...political advertising... This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such. It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.

>It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US.

This is a laughable claim once one considers blasphemy laws that still exist in many western democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39830447 - Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments [2017]