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

341–350 of 354 posts

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#341

Post by kristopolous »

tekknik wrote: post #340
kristopolous wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"the alternative to my choice"?

I voted for some third party candidate just like I have every other time.

I do attend Trump events almost weekly however. There's people who want to get rid of elections entirely. This is a strong belief among many of his supporters. They didn't think elections can be trusted - the "wrong" people are voting, the counting is corrupt, etc. They want no voting or only voting by an extremely vetted group that only agree with them.

The few Democrat events I've gone to, their supporters are completely hallucinating reality. I got constantly blindsided by the irrelevant issues they think are front and center.

I spoke with one recently who thinks the personal religious convictions of the candidates will make evangelicals switch their allegiances to the Dems. Mickey mouse is more likely to pop out of a movie screen. Total whackjobs.

Anyways, simply distancing oneself from a party is part of the problem. It requires the cult of the individual as an insitutional necessity.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#343

Post by troad »

triceratops wrote: post #339
troad wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's neither a solution nor a workaround, for the simple reason that it doesn't work either as a matter of law or in practice.

You began this thread with a deeply incorrect assertion about a federal law, then someone corrected you, then you asserted that the correction doesn't really matter, and now you're committing to ever more contorted logic to defend that initial incorrect assertion. I would very respectfully suggest that it's sometimes healthy to admit that a take was just bad. It's ok. We all have 'em. I'm sure you're a great dude. Just take the L.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#344

Post by consteval »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #327
asynchronous wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is then the theoretical contract of the two of you together takes no real repercussion for breaking the law, whereas separately if you committed crimes independently then you could be put in jail. We don’t have capital punishment for corporations, and we should.

How does that argue against people still having rights. Corporate death penalty exists, it is called bankruptcy. It is called criminal liability and people are put in jail. You just seem to disagree with how harsh (or not) the penalties are. However, that doesn't say anything about taking away rights.

This largely isn't true. The most effective way to shield yourself from crime is to just be a corporation. It's trivial to kill hundreds, even thousands, if the accountability is spread out against enough people.

Famously Bayer Pharmaceuticals knowingly sold HIV infected products in Africa. How many people got HIV? And how many then passed it on, and then how many of those passed it on? I don't know. I'm guessing the amount of people who died of AIDS is pretty much impossible to quantify. Nobody went to jail. Of course, this is an obvious example. It's not so obvious when you consider the role companies like McDonald's have played in people's deaths.

We even have separate terms for corporations, like fraud. Fraud is really just stealing. If I commit some type of fraud and get 10 million dollars, sure I might be fined. Might. If I steal 10 million dollars as an individual, then I go to prison.

The only time this doesn't happen is if, and only if, there's an individual within a corporation acting alone or calling the shots. This is trivial to avoid. The game of corporate America is really just accountability management. I mean, who do you jail if you don't even know who did it?

Ultimately though, the problem with corporations have direct influences over elections is that they inherently have different incentives than individuals. What's best for our citizens and what's best for Corp X rarely align. In fact, for many industries they're directly contrary! Tobacco thrives off of making people sick and addicted, and sure, that one is obvious. What about automobile manufacturers? Isn't it in their interest to have the most shit public infrastructure possible? And... doesn't that effect poorer Americans the most?

Or what about oil? Isn't it in their interest to make the air and water as poisonous as possible, because they can cut costs that way? And what about fast food? Isn't it in their interest to makes the ingredients and health of their food as difficult to understand as possible? And on and on and on.

Individuals would never advocate any of that, not in a million years. So, the speech isn't the same. IMO, you just can't compare them like that, because the incentives are way different. The majority of companies directly benefit from screwing you over in a plethora of ways. Why should those opinions matter? What good does that do for you or me?

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#345

Post by consteval »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #65
j1mmie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the age of information warfare, ads are a weapon and Google is the modern day Colt. If you sell guns to the North, the South needs more guns from you. If you sell to the criminals, the cops need more guns from you. Not sure what this is called but it's definitely not "don't be evil"

The term I heard was fence-setters. It's a little off though, becsuse it implies your allegiance changes. Google allegiance is always clearly on money.

The problem is though that what's best for corporations and what's best for Americans don't align.

If you're McDonald's and your goal is to make money, you're not trying to make the best quality burger. You're trying to get crack legal, so you can lace your burgers with it.

Google will always inherently have a bias towards candidates that push a narrative that helps their profits. This is true of all corporations and is the intrinsic danger of allowing them to influence elections.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#346

Post by s1artibartfast »

consteval wrote: post #344
s1artibartfast wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that argue against people still having rights. Corporate death penalty exists, it is called bankruptcy. It is called criminal liability and people are put in jail. You just seem to disagree with how harsh (or not) the penalties are. However, that doesn't say anything about taking away rights.

This largely isn't true. The most effective way to shield yourself from crime is to just be a corporation. It's trivial to kill hundreds, even thousands, if the accountability is spread out against enough people. Famously Bayer Pharmaceuticals knowingly sold HIV infected products in Africa. How many people got HIV? And how many then passed it on, and then how many of those passed it on? I don't know. I'm guessing the…

I think you are still taking issue with the severity of penalties, not legal immunity.

Should someone go to jail for HIV deaths in Africa, or heart attacks from McDonalds? I dont think the comparison to individuals is as clear as you make it out to be. We dont charge surgeons

This is beside really besides the point tho when it comes to elections. Corporations are made up of people. If you restrict them, you are also restricting the individuals. Maybe we should- A lot of countries do! I just dont get why people get into all this complex theory about corporate personhood instead of just making that claim. If you dont like corporate donations, are you really OK with Gates or whoever making a $100M donation? do you really think corporate donations are somehow worse?

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#347

Post by fennecbutt »

jsheard wrote: post #27
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.

The politicians are having to bid against Temu this year and by god do they spend a lot on ads.

Boy do I wish for a governments ban and cultural shift on the mindless resource contention consumerism that makes people buy useless plastic bullshit. Our planet is doomed, we're just lucky the Earth is so big.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#348

Post by bookofjoe »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #173
CamperBob2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why did Bezos and Soon-Shiong just decide, out of a clear blue sky, to order their newspapers to withhold endorsements?

Soon-Shiong is looking for a prestigious White House job, not sure about Bezos

Blue Origin has billions in federal government contracts

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#349

Post by School-Cotton »

AftHurrahWinch wrote: post #183
sweeter wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anyone can buy ads but who buys the majority of ads and ads with the greatest overall impact and impression? That is very obviously skewed. Campaigns directly have limitations on these things, PACs however, do not. and to your question there, one example is to look at Japan. They give candidates an allotted minimum amount of time on TV for free. A candidate gets platformed purely by running. Not only that but we alre…

> and to your question there, one example is to look at Japan. They give candidates an allotted minimum amount of time on TV for free. A candidate gets platformed purely by running. I would be willing to try it in one of our laboratories-of-democracy, but my expectation is that a lot of people would run just for the free opportunity to self-promote. "Hi my name is Ron Popeil and I'm running for city council. I firmly…

I don't know about Japan but in France at least there is some minimum threshold to prevent totally unserious random people from running. For example when I lived in France during the 2007 presidential election you needed 500 elected officials (mayors etc.) to vouch that you are a serious candidate. This threshold meant that there were 12 official candidates, unlike the hundreds in US elections, but those 12 were treated equally.

Re: All political ads running on Google in the US

#350

Post by singlepaynews »

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…

> Have you interacted with any political organizations in the last 10 years offline?

No, I haven’t. Honestly surprised at myself but post-2014 the answer is straight-up no.

When I interact with them online (or, especially lately, by getting text spam), I assume astroturf until proven otherwise. I’m having trouble coming up with an example of a campaign that has succeeded at proving otherwise.

I don’t know what NGPVan is, would you explain?

Post reply on HN