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

331–340 of 354 posts

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#331

Post by troad »

triceratops wrote: post #174
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't the Respect for Marriage Act [1] ensure they can't roll back same-sex marriage like they did abortion? No. RMA lets states ban gay marriage. It just requires them to honour other states' gay marriages.

Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder if it matters all that much. You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom, and it's a non-issue in practical terms. States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provid…

> I still wonder if it matters all that much.

It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal.

Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere.

It's spit on your face on one of the most important days of your life.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#332

Post by neom »

uoaei wrote: post #329
crazygringo wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand anything you're talking about. Nobody likes e-mail spam from anonymous groups. NGPVan has an about page that lists who runs it with photos, they have an office and a phone number, they have a Wikipedia page. But they don't legitimize anyone else, as you seem to be suggesting. Anonymous interference like this hasn't been a problem for a long time, contrary to your assertion -- it's very specific to…

NGPVan doesn't email you with influence campaigns -- their customers do. You are completely mistaken to believe their legal team hasn't insulated themselves from the activities of those who pay rent on their infrastructure.

The original point was it's typically not difficult to know who is behind legitimate things when political influence is involved. Nathaniel Pearlman in the instance of NGPVan, unknown entities in the instance of this conversation, or am I mistaken?

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#333

Post by wiether »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #330
arnaudsm wrote: post #275

In France we limit campaign budgets to 50M$ (population adjusted) and the state fully reimburses it. US presidential campaigns are 60x more expensive per capita! Have people in the US proposed such a cap to prevent corporations from buying elections, or is that too foreign of a concept ?

[flagged]

anti-democratic takeover, sure. communist? Anything but.

And I don't see how it relates to how much money is involved in the election process.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#334

Post by tekknik »

kristopolous wrote: post #310
kelipso wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like that's an impression caused by the current political media environment but it's not reality. Voter turnout is less than 50% of voting age population in the US and a significant portion of the voters are independents. Silent majority or whatever.

Those observations are somewhat in agreement. If politics became less culty there might be higher engagement. Everyone I know who posts about a particular politic or election are totally batshit. Really the only reaction I have is of concern. Like, are they getting therapy, does their family know...

you seem to have some other motive with these statements but i’ll bite, what’s the solution to a less “cult like” political environment?

should one party move to the other or something else?

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#335

Post by tekknik »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #306
strix_varius wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's a testament to my daily driver (Brave browser) that I had to Google "what is temu."

Genuinely curious: do you actually include "what is" in your searches, or was that paraphrasing?

with AI powered searches now it’s best to give it the full question instead of trying to use a keyword search

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#336

Post by triceratops »

troad wrote: post #331
triceratops wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the clarification. I still wonder if it matters all that much. You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom, and it's a non-issue in practical terms. States banning same-sex marriage within their borders takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful. But they can't actively prosecute people for crossing state lines to marry. They have to provid…

> I still wonder if it matters all that much. It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal. Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere. It's spit on your face on one of the most important days…

> because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere

What I said:

> You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom

Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please.

I also said:

> banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful

That's why it's important to read a whole comment.

I wish the Respect for Marriage Act actually forced states to legalize same-sex marriage. But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples. That's quite a difference compared to abortion.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#337

Post by kristopolous »

tekknik wrote: post #334
kristopolous wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those observations are somewhat in agreement. If politics became less culty there might be higher engagement. Everyone I know who posts about a particular politic or election are totally batshit. Really the only reaction I have is of concern. Like, are they getting therapy, does their family know...

you seem to have some other motive with these statements but i’ll bite, what’s the solution to a less “cult like” political environment? should one party move to the other or something else?

I have no idea.

Maybe it's because there's too much sensationalism and story-telling? People realized you get better ratings through theatrical emotionally charged fictions sitting adjacent to reality and they're cheaper to produce than careful and cautious journalism? That's kind of Juvenal's bread and circuses theory.

Maybe it's a natural consequence of the vast diversity of information channels and online communities so not only do classically oppressed groups have homes but also those committed to hate or messianic cults?

Maybe there's some increased isolationism of industrial society so people end up severing the in person community ties that help to keep them better attached to reality?

Maybe it's all of these?

My observation of the current state is Republicans are pining for a dictator, Democrats are trying to be a 2002 era George W Bush knockoff and most people are thinking "what is up with these lousy options?"

It's the problem you see in almost all organizations: when you focus on the fans, you alienate the base by deluding yourself into imagining a phantom majority a few steps away from loving you but which in reality wants nothing to do with you.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#338

Post by troad »

triceratops wrote: post #336
troad wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still wonder if it matters all that much. It's a daily reminder that you're a second class citizen, that your family isn't really a family worth respecting. It matters a great deal. Imagine a state prohibiting mixed race marriage, and saying "oh it doesn't really matter" because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere. It's spit on your face on one of the most important days…

> because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere What I said: > You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please. I also said: > banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful That's why it…

So your solution for a prejudiced law is the hypothetical possibility that some other state passes some other law, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Also, even if it did - your solution takes absolutely no account of how federalism works. You're proposing that RfMA requires a state to recognise a marriage undertaken in their own jurisdiction, done with the express purpose of sidestepping local law. Is that really how RfMA will shake out? Was that the intent of RfMA? Is that how Mississippi will interpret it? Is that how SCOTUS - now or future - will interpret it? And when they don't? What about a state extending civil or criminal penalties to participating in what it considers a sham marriage, much as states now do for abortion?

> But we should give thanks that it exists, because the worst states can do now is insult same-sex couples.

No, they can prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. That's identical to abortion. Even more effective, as you can be mailed an abortifacient, but you can't be mailed a wedding. Same-sex marriage, post-RfMA, is in the same position as abortion post-Dobbs. I'm meant to be upset about one but 'give thanks' for the other?

Even setting all of the above aside, you're acting like being insulted is just fine. That a person can go through their lives having their own government - a government of the people, supposedly - insult and denigrate their family. And that they should be thankful it's not worse.

That is one helluva take.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#339

Post by triceratops »

troad wrote: post #338
triceratops wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because unlawful mixed race couplings can always drive over the state lines somewhere What I said: > You only need one state to allow non-residents to marry on Zoom Driving over state lines is an unreasonable burden to getting married. Don't put words in my mouth please. I also said: > banning same-sex marriage...takes away the dignity and respect of same-sex marriages and couples, so it's quite awful That's why it…

So your solution for a prejudiced law is the hypothetical possibility that some other state passes some other law, for which you have absolutely no evidence. Also, even if it did - your solution takes absolutely no account of how federalism works. You're proposing that RfMA requires a state to recognise a marriage undertaken in their own jurisdiction , done with the express purpose of sidestepping local law. Is that…

> your solution for a prejudiced law

It's a workaround, not a solution.

> you're acting like being insulted is just fine

I said exactly the opposite of that. There's no point continuing this discussion.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#340

Post by tekknik »

kristopolous wrote: post #337
tekknik wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you seem to have some other motive with these statements but i’ll bite, what’s the solution to a less “cult like” political environment? should one party move to the other or something else?

I have no idea. Maybe it's because there's too much sensationalism and story-telling? People realized you get better ratings through theatrical emotionally charged fictions sitting adjacent to reality and they're cheaper to produce than careful and cautious journalism? That's kind of Juvenal's bread and circuses theory. Maybe it's a natural consequence of the vast diversity of information channels and online communit…

You noticed how you labeled the alternative to your choice as a dictator? I did.

The solution is to remove parties and make people think for themselves. But I do agree focusing on the extremists is counterproductive. That’s why I’m an independent, to forcefully remove bias.

Post reply on HN