131–140 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like an outrageous First Amendment violation.
No one is stopping that person from buying anything; they just have to register first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't matter; every penny must be accounted for when it comes to political spending. Failure to account is literally the corruption which is rotting the foundation of our democracy. I'm personally applauding Washington for taking this bold move, as both Facebook and Google have Seattle-area offices which they will likely not want to close. Washington and Oregon tend to act alike, and both Facebook and Google have n…
And here in thinking that this is a free speech issue. It seems to me that this law is unconstitutional. I don't have an issue with having to track tv ads, as they air over a public spectrum. But as on other media shouldn't be restricted. I wonder if this issue will come down to that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is stopping that person from buying anything; they just have to register first.
So if you don't register, your free speech is abridged. The first amendment doesn't say you have to register before you are given free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t even remotely compelling. Companies have to comply with local laws. “We’re too big to follow the rules” is no excuse. If you need an example (which you should not) I worked for a small (~100 employee) phone company and we complied with all tax laws nationwide at a federal, state, county and municipality level. That’s a lot of regulation. It was a lot of work. We did it. What’s Google’s excuse?
Yes it is an excuse. Having to comply with all these regional laws to run an ad service has a chilling effect on speech. A small or large one, depending on compliance costs.
Wait, so if I want to publish a political ad online, which can be seen in Washington, I have to publish my address so any wacko can come and threaten myself and my family? I guess somehow it makes sense to people in Washington but certainly doesn't make sense to me.
Disclosure requirements for contributions to federal campaigns are similar. Most states have voter rolls which are covered by open record laws, will release personal information on all registered voters. Address included. I'm not sure why this law strikes you as so crazy. Most individuals aren't making independent political ad buys.
I have to publish my address and who I donated to, for every crazy loon out there to see and for any employer or other person who could hurt me to retaliate if I support a wrong one? That sounds insane.
No wonder people like to contribute to PACs. With requirements like that, it's plain crazy not to use an intermediary.
> Most states have voter rolls which are covered by open record laws
Voter rolls just says the person has right to vote, not who he or she is voting for, right?
> I'm not sure why this law strikes you as so crazy.
Complete lack of privacy in the matter which is proven to expose people to harassment, retaliation, threats and violence.
> Most individuals aren't making independent political ad buys.
Probably because it's much safer to do it through an intermediary, I assume.
Wait, so if I want to publish a political ad online, which can be seen in Washington, I have to publish my address so any wacko can come and threaten myself and my family? I guess somehow it makes sense to people in Washington but certainly doesn't make sense to me.
I think that if you have a political opinion that's so unpopular you're embarrassed to put your name on it there's probably something wrong with it.
Mind you here in NZ we don't let our wackos have guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that makes sense to me. Local businesses are much more likely to know the local laws. Google is everywhere, covering thousands of local places. It'd be hard to know all the different regulation.
So what? They’re still responsible for complying with the law.
The numbers reported strike me as very small (I buy digital political ads for work). Especially 1.1mm in 2016 for FB statewide strikes me as tiny! Looking at official candidate committees for Senate+Congress only in '16 is close-ish to 30mm raised (1). Plus PACs, 501c3/4s, any Presidential spend on top, I would guess double that at least. Even if 50mm total spend that would be only 2% spent on FB which seems really l…
But. Northern Ireland, due to its history of political violence, does not require the origin of donations to be reported. Therefore someone "laundered" a >£500k donation through the DUP to the Brexit Leave campaign.
This also ties into the ongoing "fake news"/Facebook/Cambridge Analytica inquiry; how much stuff was posted to Facebook on behalf of whom that should have been considered advertising, and how was it paid for? Dominic Cummings is currently refusing to answer questions to a parliamentary committee, on the grounds that he's already being investigated by the police and the ICO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean ? Ebay isn't even subject to normal sales tax in Australia yet (will happen this July). I mean it's changing, but these multinational companies have "bypassed" (ignored and gotten away with) normal sale laws for various reasons in so many ways.
For a company a large part of being subject to laws is to hire lawyers to help you navigate them. Similar to physical laws and hiring engineers.
Ebay and Amazon have always claimed that any transaction happening on their systems was akin to selling your grasmower to your neighbor. Because, as far as they knew, that was what's happening. They only introduce buyer and seller and have nothing to do with what happens next.
Perhaps this was a semi-reasonable assumption before ebay got into accepting payments (and created several billion dollar companies with that act). For Amazon, I don't understand how this was ever accepted, but I'd bet a great deal of money Jeff Bezos somehow had assurances this interpretation was going to stick. It would have been very, very painful otherwise.
I'm pretty sure no lawyer in 1995 (or now) would have advised you in writing that this is a reasonable approach to take.