State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending • Hacker News Board

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#201

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:11 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #147

noselasd wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if people are not upset about spending money on the activity of lobbying, or getting your message out, or spending money traveling to D.C. ? They could be upset about paying money directly or indirectly to the poiticians. i.e. perhaps it is fine spending money trying to lecture politicians, but not giving the money to politicians and policymakers.

That’s already heavily restricted. You can only give a few thousand to each candidate per election cycle. The problem is that then you have arms-length third-party organizations (Super PACs) that, by virtue of not coordinating with the candidate they support, are able to spend unlimited amounts of money. And the candidates know who donates to those, so once in office, they know who to reward, just as if the donations…

I'm going to need a citation that 20% of the US population are college-educated professionals. Any way you want to slice it: of voting-age, registered, or that actually went to vote.

I'm actually curious what is the real percentage, but it's got to be way less than 20%. You surround yourself with people like you, but there's a lot of people and the world is big.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#202

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #201

wildmusings wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s already heavily restricted. You can only give a few thousand to each candidate per election cycle. The problem is that then you have arms-length third-party organizations (Super PACs) that, by virtue of not coordinating with the candidate they support, are able to spend unlimited amounts of money. And the candidates know who donates to those, so once in office, they know who to reward, just as if the donations…

I'm going to need a citation that 20% of the US population are college-educated professionals. Any way you want to slice it: of voting-age, registered, or that actually went to vote. I'm actually curious what is the real percentage, but it's got to be way less than 20%. You surround yourself with people like you, but there's a lot of people and the world is big.

> I'm going to need a citation that 20% of the US population are college-educated professionals. Any way you want to slice it: of voting-age, registered, or that actually went to vote.

Per the US Census Bureau’s 2015 American Community Survey, at least 27.24% of the voting-age (18+) population has at least a Bachelor's degree. That’s based on the number from the Over 25 population meeting that description divided by the whole over-18 population; for some reason they only report a count of over-25 with at least a bachelor's degree. [0]

Turnout increases significantly with education [1], so the share of the actually voting population with such a degree must be even higher.

So, you were right to suspect 20% was way off—just in the wrong direction.

[0] (Description page) https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-a...

(Data table) https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/voting/...

[1] http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#203

Post by ethbro » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #189

ethbro wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true and fair. I suppose my counterpoint would come from the outsized effect "national level" money can have when it randomly falls on local elections (e.g. $50M on the GA-6 [1] for a special term that only ran until this year). It seems like there's a certain "supported by people outside of our community" distaste to mega-funding, but I'm not going to kid myself and imagine it's irrelevant either. I think I'd…

To be fair, the "national level" money would likely have to be split 50 ways anyway, as any national level events worth lobbying for would likely affect all the states, to varying degrees of reception. Past that, voter engagement is a tricky thing. It's easy to know what things we want to vote for, but it's hard to know whether or not those things are economically feasible unless we're economists. Trump's tax cuts, f…

We're of the same mind on a lot of things. ;)

Watching recent history, I have a sneaking suspicion these same issues are why democratic nation-building has been such a failure.

Expecting a country to transition from 0 to democracy in one generation is probably impossible. Especially when it becomes apparent that even elder democracies are mostly held together by the strength of their institutions in times of strain.

Democracy works if everyone is educated, but as you pointed out, encounters substantial issues when (a) the problems at hand are too complex to be understood or (b) the knowledgeable vote (on both+ sides) is drowned out by an easily-swayed vote (e.g. for passion-arousing issues like free trade or immigration).

If I were attempting to build a democracy, I'd instead attempt to compress ~1000 years of European history into ~100 years of gradual government transformation. But probably start with a monarchy...

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#204

Post by s73v3r_ » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #182

s73v3r_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We routinely see very well-moneyed campaigns lose." We see it every so often, but I really don't think we see it often, and we don't see the very well moneyed campaign lose to a campaign run on a shoestring.

What's "often" however? I think it happens often enough to doubt direct link between dollars and votes, at least absent hard data proving it.

The better moneyed campaign wins over 90% of the time. There is no doubt.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#205

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 4:52 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #203

bmelton wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the "national level" money would likely have to be split 50 ways anyway, as any national level events worth lobbying for would likely affect all the states, to varying degrees of reception. Past that, voter engagement is a tricky thing. It's easy to know what things we want to vote for, but it's hard to know whether or not those things are economically feasible unless we're economists. Trump's tax cuts, f…

We're of the same mind on a lot of things. ;) Watching recent history, I have a sneaking suspicion these same issues are why democratic nation-building has been such a failure. Expecting a country to transition from 0 to democracy in one generation is probably impossible. Especially when it becomes apparent that even elder democracies are mostly held together by the strength of their institutions in times of strain.…

There's a reason that governments created by the imperial English tend to last well after it's been divested as a colony. They put in a government that really, only the government needs to know the mechanics of.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#206

Post by wildmusings » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #202

tripzilch wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to need a citation that 20% of the US population are college-educated professionals. Any way you want to slice it: of voting-age, registered, or that actually went to vote. I'm actually curious what is the real percentage, but it's got to be way less than 20%. You surround yourself with people like you, but there's a lot of people and the world is big.

> I'm going to need a citation that 20% of the US population are college-educated professionals. Any way you want to slice it: of voting-age, registered, or that actually went to vote. Per the US Census Bureau’s 2015 American Community Survey, at least 27.24% of the voting-age (18+) population has at least a Bachelor's degree. That’s based on the number from the Over 25 population meeting that description divided by…

Lots of people with bachelors degrees don’t have professional jobs.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#207

Post by dillondoyle » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

bytematic wrote: post #188

dillondoyle wrote: post #27

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…

Have you had any ads pulled from either platform recently?

Pulled like banned or reduced budgets? No. If anything there are some small campaigns we normally wouldn't work for (to small) that are against deadlines but didn't get their FB paperwork done (new rules for political ad buying)

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#208

Post by squiggleblaz » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #151

squiggleblaz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't assume that - it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved. For instance, this thread is about a state pursuing large tech companies on what can be described as free speech violations. But I've never seen anyone argue that it's okay for a state government to ban free speech, but it's not okay for the federal g…

> it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different po…

But then you're need a person who believes in women's rights to believe they stop at some arbitrary line on a map -- because American states are more like American counties than European states -- and also that anyone who believes in pro life to believe that fetal rights stop at some arbitrary line on a map. To the extent that there is competition and variety in laws there are also pressures and powers to make them homogeneous again.

As for having better oversight of state governments compared to federal governments, I think the US, Canada and Australia (i.e. all the major English-speaking federations and therefore the extent of my knowledge) have had significant problems with corruption at a state level but not so significant problems with corruption at a federal level.

Federal systems have important roles especially when -- unlike in the US -- the state borders reproduce cultural or settlement boundaries. But empirically this role is not a protection of rights. If the federal government needs more members of congress to function right, you can't say "oh we've got state governments" -- you've just gotta increase the size of congress. (FWIW, some states like California also need to take this lesson.) And if you need to protect rights, the only place to do that is in the public sphere and the community mind. Every other option might be easier but they're also much more short sighted.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#209

Post by bmelton » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

squiggleblaz wrote: post #208

bmelton wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it assumes that if it's bad when the federal government gets involved with something, it's equally bad when the state government gets involved Which in my opinion is a broadly false assumption, and ignores the very point of a federal republic, which is federalism. People in different states have different cultures, different norms, different geographies, different natural resources, different pastimes, different po…

But then you're need a person who believes in women's rights to believe they stop at some arbitrary line on a map -- because American states are more like American counties than European states -- and also that anyone who believes in pro life to believe that fetal rights stop at some arbitrary line on a map. To the extent that there is competition and variety in laws there are also pressures and powers to make them h…

> But then you're need a person who believes in women's rights to believe they stop at some arbitrary line on a map

Not so. I'm not advocating the elimination of the federal government, nor am I advocating for a reduction in the role of the courts. The 14th amendment exists, incorporates the inalienable rights in the constitution against the states, and I believe that is just and true.

That said, yes, there are logical, rational disputes on what rights allow one to do or not do, and yes, those rights are treated differently within arbitrary geographical boundaries. This is true today. There are people in jail right now for marijuana possession because they got caught with it in the wrong state, but that pales in comparison to the number of people who were jailed for marijuana because its illegality was imposed upon them by federal decree. Similarly so with immigration, gun rights, and a variety of other topics.

The law isn't settled on every subject, and there are often reasonable interpretations by well-meaning people in either direction. Having the federal government set policy clearly doesn't solve for every edge case, and I maintain that if you are caught up in a "bad place" by an interpretation of rights that disfavors you, it's a lot easier to relocate from say, California to Arizona (or vice versa) than to have to abandon America because it disfavors your rights.

If, for example, states were allowed to implement current TSA procedures as they preferred, you would likely have states competing on rubrics of security, while others competed on efficiency, or perhaps traveler friendliness. Now, instead of alienating travelers from abroad from visiting America, perhaps they are only alienated from flying into certain states.

As for the corruption angle, again, I'm not proposing we abolish the federal government, merely reduce its workload so that it can function better as a watchdog over the states to prevent and squash corruption. Having better representation locally and federally is of course a good thing, and especially so as it better empowers the adversarial system to hone in on those things that we all do agree upon, and protect those rights from being infringed upon.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting that it's a silver bullet, and that any of my ideas "solve" America, but I do think they improve upon the checks and balances that we're used to having, and allow for more freedom within American borders than we currently have, and more insulation from the legal interpretations of presidents as they are elected, and I think that's a net good.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#210

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #204

smsm42 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "often" however? I think it happens often enough to doubt direct link between dollars and votes, at least absent hard data proving it.

The better moneyed campaign wins over 90% of the time. There is no doubt.

I notice a curious lack of any reference to this claim. While looking for it, I would advise to look for those that make specific distinction between "better moneyed campaigns always win" and "more attractive campaigns attract more money". If you find any good research on casual link between money invested (beyond aforementioned minimum) and 90% guaranteed winning, please do share it. Please note the statement "there is no doubt" does not qualify as good research.