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

All political ads running on Google in the US

adstransparency.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 354 posts

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#221

Post by lovich »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #218
lovich wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really interested in dealing with you moving the goal posts back and forth, so if you would like to continue this discussion I am going to ask you to pick your strongest argument on this topic. If you do not want to pick a single argument to defend, then ok

I haven't moved any goal posts. I stand by them. Im saying this war is happening because the US wanted it. It wants it because it is great for the US. It could have been trivially avoided if the US wanted. Again, what part of this is contradictory or confusing to you?

>there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices.

That part where you declare there are numerous reasons, and not just that its in the US's interest

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#222

Post by datavirtue »

imiric wrote: post #154
cedws wrote: post #67

Political advertising just makes democracy look like a total joke. If you can buy votes by shoving ads in peoples’ faces that’s not a democracy, that’s an oligarchy.

Political advertising is just the tip of the corruption iceberg. When lobbying and gerrymandering is legal, can you really claim you're living in a democracy?

Yeah, we have the whole package right now. Grift on top of grift where trust and accountability wither rapidly.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#223

Post by datavirtue »

leereeves wrote: post #177
reaperducer wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So legal that he stopped after being warned by the feds.

Who says he stopped? I can't find that in the news, and the offer is still up at: https://petition.theamericapac.org/ Even the Biden DOJ only warned him that it "might be illegal". They're stretching the law, trying to apply a law against paying people to register to vote, but Elon will pay people who are already registered so that's quite a stretch.

Widely reported today.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#224

Post by s1artibartfast »

lovich wrote: post #221
s1artibartfast wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't moved any goal posts. I stand by them. Im saying this war is happening because the US wanted it. It wants it because it is great for the US. It could have been trivially avoided if the US wanted. Again, what part of this is contradictory or confusing to you?

>there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices. That part where you declare there are numerous reasons, and not just that its in the US's interest

It takes more than one country to go to war. Each has choices, like cars driving at each other. Each has the power to swerve, make concessions, or go to war, or surrender, ect. Each option may have pros and cons and costs.

The US could have stepped on the breaks at any moment with no cost by not expanded NATO. However, war is a win for the reasons stated, and Russia backing down and letting it happen was also a win. it was masterful strategy to put Russia in a lose lose choice. Sure, it has agency to pick, but it had no option to continue the status quo. Every party has full control to stop things at any moment. It is just a matter of what they stand to gain or lose.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#225

Post by lovich »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #224
lovich wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there are numerous reasons and everyone has choices. That part where you declare there are numerous reasons, and not just that its in the US's interest

It takes more than one country to go to war. Each has choices, like cars driving at each other. Each has the power to swerve, make concessions, or go to war, or surrender, ect. Each option may have pros and cons and costs. The US could have stepped on the breaks at any moment with no cost by not expanded NATO. However, war is a win for the reasons stated, and Russia backing down and letting it happen was also a win.…

>It takes more than one country to go to war.

So you agree that Russia could stop the war at any time, and didn't need to start it in the first place?

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#226

Post by FirmwareBurner »

type0 wrote: post #196
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you thought to consider that the slowness in aiding Ukraine is a feature, not a bug?

the feature to see as many Ukrainians dead as possible?

Why do you think NATO actually cares about Ukrainians dying? People are dying everywhere on the planet from war, famine, disease etc on a daily basis. Look at Gaza. What makes the Ukraine situation different or special loosing sleep over in NATO?

If people in your country would be dying do you think other people in countries on the other side of the planet are gonna care enough to do anything radical about it?

Of course not, they're gonna send some symbolic aid along with thoughts and prayers and that's it, you're still on your own to solve your problem.

Nobody's gonna risk they're lives and livelihoods entering a conflict they have no skin in the game in unless there's something in it for them.

If you were to give NATO member citizens a vote today whether they'd rather have cheap food, cheap energy and a pre-2022 economy, at the expense of Ukraine falling, a lot of people would gladly make that trade.

People without luxury beliefs don't care about other people on the other side of the world if it means their own livelihoods have to suffer as a consequence, otherwise they wouldn't be buying 4$ shirts made by slaves in Bangladesh, or cheap coffee and bananas picked by slaves in LatAM, or electronics with cobalt mined by slaves in Africa.

It might not be a popular fact to say or hear, but it's still a fact nonetheless, and pretending otherwise would be just virtue signaling.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#227

Post by reverius42 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #68
older wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Musk. Opposite of economic elites!

The world's wealthiest man, who has aligned himself with a billionaire property developer and reality-TV host, isn't part of the "economic elite?" Some days I just wake up on the wrong side of the rabbit hole, I guess.

I read it as sarcasm.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#229

Post by fakedang »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #155
outside1234 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do believe that something like 70% of SV can't stand Trump. You can see that in the insane amount of money Kamala has raised from SV (which probably even dwarfs Trump's XX person oligarch haul). It is largely the sociopaths at the very very top that are Trump donors.

SV only cares about whoever will help them make more money. Everything else is virtue signaling by champagne socialists pretending to care about current day social issues and the struggles of the lower classes.

Somebody (an SV VC actually) once gave me some advice: Silicon Valley VCs will be all nice to you in front of you but talk shit behind your back. East Coast VCs will outright tell you your product is shit and that you are shit, just like your n-th order ancestors.

It was very good advice.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#230

Post by morpheuskafka »

According to the site, ad targeting is allowed based on gender and age, but not race or religion, for example. All four of those categories were previously used to restrict voting and are now legally protected from voting discrimination.

Why allow targeting some of them but not all? Either all should be disallowed (for the same reason that race, religion, etc are), or all should be allowed (on the reasoning that this is about choosing who to promote your message to, not in any way affecting who can vote or independently search about election issues--which is presumably why age and gender are allowed).

Post reply on HN