Earlier quoted context omitted.
People need to think very carefully So let me stop you right there...
Yeah, well, I didn't say I was making a prediction. sigh
Or stopped to think carefully... badaboom! Try the veal.
We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
81–90 of 353 posts
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#82This is why I am not a part or participate in Facebook.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.
For better or worse, it legally is in the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) for what we're talking about.
To say that it's controversial would be an understatement.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#84By telling Facebook to gatekeep what gets advertised better, there is a tacit admission that adverting is manipulative in a way that can not be defended from by the viewer, but simultaneously fine to expose the public to as long as we control that the manipulation happens in the ways editors at the large news organs agree with.
That is a tautology and you could make the same claim about anything that is regulated.
Well, advertising is a little different than e.g. alcohol or cigarettes because it's not something you make a conscious choice to consume.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraud is already a crime. And in most cases, prosecution comes after a crime is committed. Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's a good idea for them to do it, it's a bad idea to use threat of force (government) to do. In the end, I do know several third party candidates that had a lot of trouble posting genuine ads... so there's a bit of a problem all around.
> Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's worked pretty well for discriminatory housing ads.
Because you can tell from the ad choice that it is discrinatory, and you cannot abet a crime knowingly.
With political ads? What is the crime being committed? If it is fraud, then we make it illegal to place an ad without rendering your ID, like with a bank account.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.
> Money isn't speech.
there are several supreme court cases that have ruled differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.
This is a tiresome argument. The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press (ie, the printing press). The clear aim is to guarantee not just the right to speech, but also the right to _distribute_ that speech. In fact, without that the right to freedom of speech is of limited value.
This doesn't mean Facebook couldn't ban political ads, but it does mean it would be unreasonable for the government to do so.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
Money isn't speech. What's being proposed is a ban on certain business transactions, not a ban on a particular issue of speech.
money isn't speech but the courts that ultimately decide this in the USA are directly appointed by someone who got elected using money instead of speech.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#89The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…
For varying definitions of best. We have the first amendment in America. It says the government can't make laws that limit a private citizen's ability to express themselves (among other things). That includes their political advertising. This is a really dangerous / slippery precedent to set, and the whole "we should change longstanding laws to deal with a problem that feels like a local maximum" is something that ma…
>...political advertising...
This is a euphemism for quid pro quo bribery. The Europeans and other democracies recognize it as such.
It is clear that the Western Democracies have at least as much freedom of speech as the US. For example, they do not have leaders who get sport figures professionally banned for what is conspicuously an instance of unpaid political speech.
Re: We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them
#90The best solution, and currently in effect as law in many European countries, would be to stop political ads altogether on Facebook and the Web. No more "hey who is paying for that anti-XXX political ad?", they just wouldn't exist anymore. Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns. Also, this article comes just one week after that one: "Facebook’s political ad tool let us buy ads “paid for” by Mike Pen…
[deleted]