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

251–260 of 354 posts

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#251

Post by singlepaynews »

uoaei wrote: post #242
crazygringo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Real" legitimate domestic political groups usually have the names of the people running them, with bios, etc. Who founded them, etc. They try to make it easy to figure out who they are so you trust them. When that information is missing it's extremely suspicious, and rightly so.

I think that's a pretty obsolete take that hasn't been reliable since Obama '08 and the "digital strategy". Not saying anything about "should", zealous downvoters...

Why? Do you know something I don’t? Intuitively to me it seems like “unverified identities are usually fake” is the core tenant of post-internet media literacy.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#252

Post by NekkoDroid »

datavirtue wrote: post #220
AftHurrahWinch wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find this interesting! "The Impact of Negative Political Advertisement on Voter Behaviour in Germany – an Experiment" https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f8324712... "Negative campaigning has been a feature of German political campaigns from the very beginning of the Federal Republic... the central idea of this paper is to examine the considerable difference between negative campaigning in G…

Sounds like their system isn't in the later stages of cancer like the US.

I think part of the reason why attack style ads don't work is because you usually need to choose some "villain", which just isn't feasable with more than 2 parties since voters will still have other options than you. Well, unless you vilify every party except your own but that kinda makes your party look crazy.

The closest I can think of is somewhat vilifying the extreme ends of the political spectrum since most parties can agree on that (assuming you have more than like 5 parties).

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#253

Post by uoaei »

singlepaynews wrote: post #251
uoaei wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a pretty obsolete take that hasn't been reliable since Obama '08 and the "digital strategy". Not saying anything about "should", zealous downvoters...

Why? Do you know something I don’t? Intuitively to me it seems like “unverified identities are usually fake” is the core tenant of post-internet media literacy.

Have you interacted with any political organizations in the last 10 years offline? If/when you interact with them online, do they claim provenance through some actual recognized body or just some vagaries around how they want to depict their alignments?

If this was such a big deal, where is the hubbub about pretty much every email in my inbox?

NGPVan (for instance, on the Dem side) doesn't require much except the bare minimum of legal registration for political organizations, I don't buy that what is essentially a "marketplace for voters' email addresses" suddenly legitimizes anyone who signs up for their service.

My point is, if this is a problem, it has been one for a long time and the cultural zeitgeist seems to have simply ignored this except in cases that can be used to demonize enemies.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#254

Post by riehwvfbk »

worstspotgain wrote: post #207
vharuck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The most salient feature of Russian meddling is playing all sides, both ideologically and in levels of sophistication. The less-sophisticated efforts are basically misdirection and camouflage. They are intentionally disarming, akin to how their 'strongman' puppets make an effort to bumble and 'accidentally' feed the trolls. Covfefe bigly, if you will.

And you know they succeeded when they planted such paranoia in the citizens that they start seeing them everywhere.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#255

Post by s1artibartfast »

lovich wrote: post #225
s1artibartfast wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Any primary party could stop it at any time. Russia can stop it tomorrow. Ukraine can stop it tomorrow. Nobody involved "needed" to start it. I do think that Russia saw itself facing an existential threat.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#256

Post by [deleted] »

uoaei wrote: post #253
singlepaynews wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Do you know something I don’t? Intuitively to me it seems like “unverified identities are usually fake” is the core tenant of post-internet media literacy.

Have you interacted with any political organizations in the last 10 years offline? If/when you interact with them online, do they claim provenance through some actual recognized body or just some vagaries around how they want to depict their alignments? If this was such a big deal, where is the hubbub about pretty much every email in my inbox? NGPVan (for instance, on the Dem side) doesn't require much except the bar…

[deleted]

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#257

Post by actionfromafar »

riley123 wrote: post #203
jodacola wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more interesting update: AMA AL PROMIJO was established in care of an individual named Eric Sapp. Some googling landed me on an org’s site named Public Democracy. One of the other team members at the company[0] is the person named in care of one of the NORTH CAROLINA VOLUNTEER CORPS. Seems we have some glue here! Time to learn more about this Public Democracy thing to try to figure out their angle. [0] https://ww…

Here's the website that has info about the program, and lists AMA AL PROMIJO as a 'partner': https://www.publicdemocracyamerica.org/better-angels-program All these orgs are taking advantage of the 'Google Grants' program, which provides up to $10,000 per month in free search advertising for registered nonprofits. $120,000/yr in free ads for the cost of registering a nonprofit seems like a no-brainer for spreading a m…

These incentives are incredibly misaligned. How big is this tax loop hole to Google? Truck sized or Battlestar sized?

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#258

Post by scythmic_waves »

teach wrote: post #14

It's fascinating. I'm at home and my pi-hole ad-blocking rules apparently trigger for that page, so although I can see the titles, all the images just fail to load.

Oh _that's_ what's happening. I was wondering why so many images were broken but I hadn't investigated.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#259

Post by seizethecheese »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #5

Interesting to compare the top ads when sorting "Amount spent: high to low" and "Number of times shown: high to low". Political ads from 4 years ago appear to have been shown many more times for much less cost. This year's ads seem considerably more expensive while also reaching a smaller audience.

Ad impressions were artificially cheap during Covid as people spent more time on their devices. There was such an increase in prices post-Covid that it caused a bust in e-commerce companies. This was also partially caused by Apple privacy changes.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#260

Post by seizethecheese »

candiddevmike wrote: post #26
xnx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is part of that.

Nah, I think this one is just greed.

First of all, the above comment says “part” and that’s incontrovertibly true.

Second of all, by what mechanism is this greed and from whom? You do know this is an auction, right? In that case, are the greedy actors the other auction bidders, trying to also spend more money?

Post reply on HN