Live data from Hacker News

Twitter to ban political advertising

twitter.com

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#581

From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…

That's what confuses me, a bit. Consider just as a hypothetical that Facebook is the single most unethical company on earth. Just as an example, whether you agree with it or not. I still wouldn't necessarily agree with what's being asked of them, to actively disallow political ads with lies. I think there's a good case to be made for just not having political ads (because of all the reasons you'd expect)... but I can…

[flagged]

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#582
post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We have the civil rights act of 1964.

But presumably, were this discussion taking place in 1963, there would be someone saying: will do whatever the hell it wants on its own property and has no obligation to listen to anyone except the voice of 51% of its shareholders.

Yes. Exactly what I tried to suggest.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#583
Perhaps it’s my own selection bias but why does it feel like everyone thinks this will righteously hurt republicans and be beneficial to democrats?

I feel like this is a major blow to democrats more than republicans as democrats have a larger audience on Twitter. Do democrats not think they too benefit from carpet bombing ads?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#584

Perhaps it’s my own selection bias but why does it feel like everyone thinks this will righteously hurt republicans and be beneficial to democrats? I feel like this is a major blow to democrats more than republicans as democrats have a larger audience on Twitter. Do democrats not think they too benefit from carpet bombing ads?

That's in-line with the announcement, though:

> We've made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.

> - https://twitter.com/jack/status/1189634360472829952

If Democrats have a larger audience, they don't need to pay for the exposure, they already have it.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#585
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will remove the direct influence on who the ad gets sent to at least, a tweet will spread organically to a much wider audience than a targeted ad so messages cannot be as micro-targeted.

Good point. Now if only we could ban micro-targetting in general. It's a corrosive force to society in a wide array of scenarios, not just political advertising. (For instance, it's been known to facilitate discrimination in real estate and the job market.)

I think for things like jobs, housing, etc that have protected civil rights the only real way to ensure people's rights aren't being infringed is to make them completely open and post both the ad and the stats of where the ad was served/the settings for the targeted audience depending on the type of . Maybe even need to directly test that the bidder isn't racially targeting with random test offers if it's a google style bot bidding system. A similar system is probably needed for political ads because one insidious fact of web targeted ads is there's much less chance to respond to and potentially debunk them if they're highly targeted. With radio and television ads you couldn't do that they'd go to everyone watching so more people outside the targeted demo would see.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#586
post #422

From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…

One persons "suppression of speech" is another persons right to not publish and spread that persons bullshit. This is why people always bring up that the "Free speech" is a concept that applies to governments(never-mind the historical origins in ancient Athens which was largely around protecting political discourse and dissent from prosecution..). Like many restrictions placed on the government it falls apart and bec…

The principles which make up the Bill of Rights are derived from natural law, which itself derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from space, time, and matter.

Just as Newton didn't create the law of gravity, no man or government created the right to freedom of expression. That there are certain rights which exist as prerequisites necessary for the formation of a peaceful society of civilized humans was not created, it was discovered.

Aristotle and others argued that each kind of animal has a mental nature that is appropriate to its physical nature. All animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically fitted to live. Thus humans are naturally capable of knowing how to live together and do business with each other without killing each other.

In England the theory of natural law led to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of right, and the English Enlightenment. It was the basis for the US revolution and the US bill of rights.

The fact that society runs smoothly when natural law is applied has been proven over and over again. Over and over and over again throughout the ages tyrants and social engineers have tested these natural laws, the end result of such disrespect has always led and always will lead to one thing and one thing only: violence.

That people no longer understand this, and that corporations and powerful pseudo-rulers do not respect this, is nothing new, but only shows how much we are regressing as a society in terms of our basic respect for our fellow man.

Deflecting from that by pretending that only the government is responsible for respecting this truth is... well... ignorant and recklessly defiant not only of the lessons of history, but of human nature itself.

What the Constitution formally acknowledges and attempts to respect, which should apply to everybody operating within the social contract, is that any ruler, or anyone who places themselves in the position of a ruler, who violates natural law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed, and his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals, and should be dealt with in accordance with natural law, as applied in a state of nature, in other words they and their servants should be killed as the opportunity presents, like the dangerous animals that they are, the common enemies of all mankind.

What I am saying has provided the moral and legal basis for many great revolutions, and many governments.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#587
post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those pesky Americans with their free speech... doesn’t anyone here see what this really is about? The elites have lost control of the narrative so they are doing what all elites do in a time of crisis: ban it all. Shut up you mere mortals and go back to doing what you’re told and thinking what we want you to think.

(I didn't downvote you but) I think the "elites" are the ones who most abuse the right to free speech, by controlling mass media and the public narrative, as well as conflating political contributions as "speech". Money talks. When Jack says: > This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic in…

Thank you for not down voting me — but I’d love you just the same if you did. I find it difficult to rebut the argument you present with the following exception: in the US we have several hundred years of rigorous iteration in our legal system with respect to what is and what isn’t protected speech. For twitter to decide now and it this juncture that the speech it most dislikes is x, something about that doesn’t sit well. That said there’s long been an odd relationship between campaign spending and the media. Many local newsroom’s entire budgets depend on election years and yet we are supposed to believe they’re impartial. So I get that there’s a principle involved in this decision that they simply aren’t going to be like the local newsroom. That’s what they say... but who is going to watchdog this policy to make sure it really works like that and who is going to even notice when they inevitably make decisions that go beyond the criteria initially laid out? Seems to me rather than being a principled stand this is simply a way for them to create an ever shifting rule set to promote the speech they like while silencing speech they disagree with.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#588
post #422

From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…

One persons "suppression of speech" is another persons right to not publish and spread that persons bullshit. This is why people always bring up that the "Free speech" is a concept that applies to governments(never-mind the historical origins in ancient Athens which was largely around protecting political discourse and dissent from prosecution..). Like many restrictions placed on the government it falls apart and bec…

So Facebook should be regulated as a publisher?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#589

Whenever these topics come up, the comment section is full of people advocating for no limits based solely on slipper slope arguments: who is going to determine what is politcal? Who is going to determine what is true? But we all life with boundaries and we cope just fine. Why should this street in front of my house have a 35 MPH speed limit? What is special about 35? Why not 36? Why not 34? Who is to say that one is…

Most cops won't hassle you for going 45 in a 35 zone unless it's meaningfully unsafe, and the Autobahn's speed limit "don't be an idiot" at human discretion.

One problem is the fuzzy nature of "political" advertising: For example, many people think of Planned Parenthood as a political organization, and some people think of Planned Parenthood as a health care provider. Ought Planned Parenthood to be allowed to advertise abortion services on Twitter?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#590
post #30

One of the key aspects of political content on social media is that you don't necessarily need to buy ads to get your message in front of people. You can instead pay for an army of bots to spread your message and make it appear as genuine user generated content rather than a prepackaged advertisement. So while this decision by Twitter is in my opinion good, what are they doing to cut down on inauthentic political eng…

They've been going after bots and sockpuppets too when they find them. Either way at least removing the ability to forcibly promote ads in front of certain groups now they have to do that targeting themselves and it's more out in the open where it can be called out unlike the ads which you wouldn't see unless you were targeted.
Post reply on HN