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

State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 213 posts

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#71

Post by wildmusings »

awakeasleep wrote: post #70
wildmusings wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you get your message out without spending money? Do you only consider it freedom of speech if no one has a chance of hearing you? Spending money is how people with novel ideas expose it to more people and can hope to compete against established ideas that don’t need to be marketed.

Stopping the treatment of money as speech doesn't ban money, it just means it has to be spent transparently.

Actually that’s exactly what it would do. Citizens United was about the government banning a film because it was illegal campaign spending.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#72

Post by chapium »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #59
chapium wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone else getting tired of everyone playing editor on HN? In some cases its nice when clickbait headlines are reduced to their original content. However threads like this are drowning out the conversation about the subject matter.

It would be nice if such comments were hidden or filtered (with no karma penalty of course) once reviewed by a moderator. Or at least, given a substantial visibility penalty.

Seems pretty fair.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#73

Post by chapium »

lakechfoma wrote: post #65
chapium wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone else getting tired of everyone playing editor on HN? In some cases its nice when clickbait headlines are reduced to their original content. However threads like this are drowning out the conversation about the subject matter.

I wouldn't bother clicking on this link if I knew it was the state. So no, I'm not tired of everyone playing editor because it benefits me in the end. I also don't agree that such threads drown the conversation. Often they're buried. Sometimes they are a healthy part of the conversation itself. Sometimes there's a passive aggressive argument about whether or not the conversation is healthy and hey maybe even that's h…

I seem to be in the minority, carry on.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#74

Post by theseatoms »

confounded wrote: post #67
mobilefriendly wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous speech (for individuals) is also central to a functioning republic democracy.

But relatedly, money being treated as speech is antithetical to a functioning republic democracy.

What an odd indictment of republic democracies.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#75

Post by dvtrn »

slededit wrote: post #33
s73v3r_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.

They aren't contributing to the compaign - Citizens United was about spending money on your own advertising. You are allowed to buy whatever airtime you want to say whatever you want. If you happen to want to say something nice about one candidate or mean about another in the airtime you bought it's hard to argue that's not covered by free speech rights. You can argue that this has perverse effects - but the courts h…

the harm has to be immediate and direct.

I believe this is what Brandberg v Ohio established as the test of "imminent lawless action"

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#76

Post by adamsea »

sien wrote: post #56
throwaway2048 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i see nothing noble about enabling anonymous fronts for billionares to push stuff like fake grassroots movements.

How about forcing lists of donors to, say, a labor activist being used to create 'no hire' lists? What about anyone funding a tenancy advocacy organisation being added to a 'do not rent to this person' list? What about people funding pro-choice organisations being added to 'unchristian lists' so christian employers check if their beliefs coincide. The potential abuses of forcing disclosure for all donations are consi…

I do not know the law around this but it seems reasonable to distinguish between a ten dollar individual donation and a ten million dollar individual donation. Doing so would address much (perhaps all?) of the legitimate concerns you raise.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#77

Post by adamsea »

rhino369 wrote: post #46
s73v3r_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. Placing a flat limit of $1000 per person per tax year, and only allowing actual people to contribute should not have any negative effects on free speech.

Would you shut down the Washington Post? Or is Jeff Bezos allowed to buy a newspaper? Why is Anderson Cooper allowed to spread his opinions with the aid of a multi hundred million dollar distribution system but I can’t buy 2000 dollars of Facebook ads? Limits on funding speech are limits on speech.

It’s more like Anderson Cooper is allowed to spread the viewpoints of his which overlap with what the corporation he works for will tolerate, which is a very different thing than being able to spread ones own views.

I know that’s a tangent from your main point but couldn’t resist :).

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#78

Post by ethbro »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #44
slededit wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't contributing to the compaign - Citizens United was about spending money on your own advertising. You are allowed to buy whatever airtime you want to say whatever you want. If you happen to want to say something nice about one candidate or mean about another in the airtime you bought it's hard to argue that's not covered by free speech rights. You can argue that this has perverse effects - but the courts h…

Citizens United made and sold a documentary. There's no difference between that and HBO, spending limits are ultimately an attack on independent media and new media.

If you equate money spent on political advertising with votes (which I believe has strong empirical support), then failure to regulate inevitably devolves democracy into plutocracy.

Assuming that's not desired, the question then becomes how best to balance free speech with equalizing commercial political speech.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#79

Post by newfoundglory »

wildmusings wrote: post #71
awakeasleep wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stopping the treatment of money as speech doesn't ban money, it just means it has to be spent transparently.

Actually that’s exactly what it would do. Citizens United was about the government banning a film because it was illegal campaign spending.

No, banning money would make campaign spending illegal for any reason.

Re: State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

#80

Post by bmelton »

ethbro wrote: post #78
mobilefriendly wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United made and sold a documentary. There's no difference between that and HBO, spending limits are ultimately an attack on independent media and new media.

If you equate money spent on political advertising with votes (which I believe has strong empirical support), then failure to regulate inevitably devolves democracy into plutocracy. Assuming that's not desired, the question then becomes how best to balance free speech with equalizing commercial political speech.

And according to the Supreme Court, many times over, the very purpose of the first amendment is to protect speech, and the most important form of speech to protect is political speech.

Yes, there are downsides to unfettered speech, but freedom means having to let other people do things I don't like, and in exchange, I can do things they don't like.

If the problem is that money can buy unlimited federal power, then you can limit the federal powers available for purchase without curtailing the freedom of the citizenry to engage in political speech as they choose.

Post reply on HN