Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

81–90 of 213 posts

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

#81
post #80
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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.

This is an excellent point.

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

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an outrageous First Amendment violation.

Does it? - it’s barely outrageous - doesn’t seem to be about the first amendment - nor is it much of a violation

Something about "making no law abridging the freedom of the press."

What other forms of speech would you, personally, like to see require government registration?

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

#84

Could you change the title to say "State of Washington"?

Wouldn't the short of Washington DC simply be DC?

To the rest if the world, no. Washington is used to refer to the whole country of the USA

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

#85
post #80
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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.

I may be missing something obvious, but how do you suggest this could be done?

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

#86
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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. This is an excellent point.

Furthermore, it is not well-defined which speech is "political" speech, and which is not. What cause is it possible to advocate for that is not political in some way? If the business of politics and government is passing and implementing laws, then nearly any issue is or can be political in nature. If I advocate for regulating or not regulating the Internet, software, app stores, data privacy (a la GDPR), or basically anything else, then that can be construed as political.

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

#87
post #85
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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. I may be missing something obvious, but how do you suggest this could be done?

There are a lot of ways. For one, an adversarial congress is a feature, not a bug. We've seen already that as congress has become more polarized, lobbyist dollars have moved from federal to state in droves.

Limit the scope and power of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Most modern interpretations are based on Wickard v. Fillburn's "Well, if everybody did it, it might affect interstate commerce" interpretation, which I find flawed, and which gives the federal government outsized power over the states. It is through ICC power, for example, that the federal government was putting state-legal dispensary workers in federal prison, for example.

States need to reclaim their 10th amendment rights. We've seen an uptick in that recently, with many states adopting gay marriage in defiance of DOMA, or allowing marijuana usage in defiance of federal law, or more recently with Vermont (or maybe CT?) allowing prescription drugs to be purchased from out of country.

Disallow regulatory bodies from having effective power to make laws. Laws should be made by Congress, and so long as agencies are beholden to the executive, and they can make rules that have law-making power, congress has abrogated its duty, and gives far too much power to .

Past that, you achieve electoral results the same way you achieve any political end -- voting in the people who espouse your aims, voting out those who don't. You know who to vote for by maintaining your political savvy, from reading both sides of news articles, by holding both sides accountable, even when you happen to like them, and by being eternally vigilant to the laws, the law makers, and exploring the intended and unintended side effects of "good" laws.

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

#88
post #51
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because Washington alone would represent the HQ of the national government. Think of "London", "Beijing".

Which, for those who like funny Wikipedia words, is a synecdoche .

Ha, that is interesting! I had no idea there was a word for this, I love it when HN comes through with a nugget like this! Thank you!

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

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? - it’s barely outrageous - doesn’t seem to be about the first amendment - nor is it much of a violation

Something about "making no law abridging the freedom of the press." What other forms of speech would you, personally, like to see require government registration?

How about: any claim to be a medical professional, law enforcement officer, or attorney?

(I’m sure there’s more, but those come immediately to mind.)

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

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Have you lobbied? Testified? Written to any of your representatives?

Does't cost much. Is pretty effective.

Huge sums of money is really only needed for GOTV and propaganda.

Post reply on HN