Twitter to ban political advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#991

Post by partiallypro » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

proverbialbunny wrote: post #367

partiallypro wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political ads are free speech.

There was a campaign finance law in 1971 that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In Buckley v. Valeo, the US Supreme Court ruled that campaign finance laws are freedom of speech, in that without such laws, the every day person is restricted from being heard when the wealthy are allowed to use money beyond what the common person can pay. Because of this, the court upheld limits on contributions to candidates ru…

Neither of those have to do with someone putting $500 down to run a political ad on Facebook. Local politicians, mayors, etc run political ads. Good luck policing all of that. If you block an individual from spending $500 on Facebook ads because of some law, you are violating that person's freedom of speech. That is entirely separate from campaign finance. Why stop there? Why not limit what Newspapers can say? They often get stories about politicians wrong, sometimes even in an effort to sway public opinion.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#992

Post by timtas » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

yoavm wrote: post #784

ralusek wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lowest level of truth telling is stating facts, but even stating facts can be extremely manipulative. If I were to say: "2x as many white Americans were killed by police as black Americans in 2018." This a true fact. If I take note of the fact that black Americans only constitute 13% of the population, then I can say "A black American is 2.3x as likely as a white American to be killed by police." This is also a t…

But these really aren't the type of lies that people consider fake news. Yeah, all the things you've written are facts, and their interpretations are what we call opinions. I agree with you that all of these statements, since they're true, should be allowed without a question. People still need to think and be critical. I just took a look at a long list of lies by your current President. It has nothing to do with fac…

Sorry but no, the sides cannot work together to dispassionately purge only clear falsehoods.

Consider this case, hot off the presses. Yesterday Aaron Sorken wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg in the New York Times in which he stated the following:

"And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo. That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth."

Really? Sorken knows for sure that Biden was not self-dealing? Joe was totally not thinking about his son's half million dollar no-show job with a corrupt Ukranian firm when he ordered the Ukranian government to fire the guy who was investigating it? Wow, that's a really amazing level of access to the truth!

No doubt Sorken has heard and completely believes the mainstream narrative: the prosecutor was himself corrupt and all right-thinking people wanted him removed. (Never mind it's entirely possible that this narrative is true, AND Biden was self-dealing.)

My point is not to convince anyone that Biden was self-dealing. My point is that Sorken is calling objectively false something that is clearly plausible.

This is how it goes. Most people are invested in narratives, and they are keen to suppress ideas that counter their preferred narrative. The idea that they will somehow draw clean lines between facts an interpretations has always been a foolish hope.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#993

Post by Seahawkshacker » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

I support the banning of political ads on any platform that can be subject to manipulation an or have thousands of bots then go to work to support a side (not real people). Political ads are nothing more than money in politics. Make politicians spend that money instead on traveling to towns and having town halls, greeting people on the streets, businesses, and in as much in person instead. Have them earn it, not just sit back and have some marketing person create ads for them.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#994

Post by yoavm » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

timtas wrote: post #992

yoavm wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But these really aren't the type of lies that people consider fake news. Yeah, all the things you've written are facts, and their interpretations are what we call opinions. I agree with you that all of these statements, since they're true, should be allowed without a question. People still need to think and be critical. I just took a look at a long list of lies by your current President. It has nothing to do with fac…

Sorry but no, the sides cannot work together to dispassionately purge only clear falsehoods. Consider this case, hot off the presses. Yesterday Aaron Sorken wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg in the New York Times in which he stated the following: "And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch o…

Wait, but if I know the story well enough, Trump didn't say that Biden might have offered Ukraine $1B. He simply said that he promised. And as far as we can all know, Biden promising $1B to Ukraine isn't a fact. Is it plausible? Sure. Can Trump suggest that it's a possibility? Of course. But had Trump suggested that Biden might have given $1B, people could judge it for what it is - an assumption. Instead, he presented it as fact, which it simply isn't.

It seems to me that truth isn't so hard to find when one actually looks for it.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#995

Post by yoavm » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

bigwavedave wrote: post #959

orthecreedence wrote: post #935

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that one side tells lies, and the other only truth is part of the problem here. Your divisive thinking is the problem here. Someone said that Trump lies, they didn't say "Republicans lie and dems don't," but that was somehow your interpretation of the statement that Trump lies (which is true of any president, yet you and I both know in our heart of hearts that he lies more than anybody by an overwhelming m…

I believe the parent was mistakenly interpreting "lies told by your president" (emphasis mine) to be a #NotMyPresident kind of attack from a citizen across the aisle as opposed to an observation from a non-citizen. It sounds like the parent thought gp was a democratic who was insinuating that the current president and his political party are the only president and party who've told lies so egregious compared to those…

That's funny, it didn't cross my mind at all. I said your president because I'm not from the USA, that's all.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#996

Post by dang » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

sacrificedcapon wrote: post #988

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't discredit anti-vaxxers with speech. Same with flat-earthers. Same with fascists. You know what works? De-platforming them. Not giving them a voice in the public discourse. Not taking anti-vaxxers seriously and placing them at the same level as doctors because ''both sides'' and ''free speech''. What has been proven again and again is that bad information drives out good, because it's so, so much easier to w…

[flagged]

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Doing that destroys the intellectual curiosity the site exists for, so we ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for or against.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#997

Post by mthoms » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

sacrificedcapon wrote: post #987

mthoms wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that (1) The Danes who wrote those laws were elected by the citizens in a fair and open democracy. (2) The enforcement (presumably) falls on their judicial system. One that is transparent, progressive and highly respected around the world. (3) That Denmark has one of the lowest rates of corruption in the world. (4) That Danes are free to pursue information elsewhere (as in the entire internet) if they don't li…

1) Right. And the holocaust was perpetrated by germans who were elected by citizens in a fair and open democracy. The extermination of the native americans were perpetrated by americans who were elected by citizens in a fair and open democracy. You seems to have a naive understanding of democracy. People always forget that the nazis won elections. People forget that the greatest evils ( genocide, atomic bombings, etc…

>Do you know how I know? Saudi, chinese, russians, etc all "self-congratulatory" excuses for why they need censorship. Just like you did.

First of all, I'm not Danish. I don't know why you assumed that.

Look, the OP simply said they have a system whereby proven falsehoods need to be corrected in the newspaper. That's all. They just have to correct mistakes that can be proven demonstrably false.

It seems perfectly reasonable, but don't take my word for it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Denmark -

> In 2004, 2005, and 2009 Denmark received a joint first place in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders.[5] Since 2011, Denmark has consistently been in the top-10 out of 179 countries in the index and it was fourth in 2016.

People in Denmark have literally risked their lives exercising freedom of the press. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...

For some bizarre reason you equated that record with the Saudis, Chinese, Russians and (most hilariously) with the Nazis. Your hyperbole is lazy and ill-informed.

And no, Denmark isn't perfect. No country is. I never claimed otherwise. So don't bother the straw men. The topic was freedom of speech and freedom of the press. A topic for which modern Denmark has an outstanding record.

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#998

Post by buboard » Sat, Nov 02, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

jcranberry wrote: post #989

buboard wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world s autocratic countries (russia china turkey etc) don’t rely on fabricated news, they rely on hiding the truth and placing a biased spin on it. They know that outright lies will actually harm their image.

That's a few autocratic countries. Such a statement is obviously not true in general. For starters you have dictatorships which have been based upon absurd and shameless lies. North Korea currently, Haiti under Papa Doc, Turkmenistan under Niyazov. In addition I'd imagine hiding news is the first line of defense, but if that fails none of these autocratic governments are not above lying (and I'd bet you find the dict…

I m talking about specifically “fake news” , lies that are generally obvious yet for emotional reasons persistent

What s different about autocrats is that they will unscrupulously plant evidence and kill everyone who knows

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#999

Post by proverbialbunny » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 4:52 AM UTC

partiallypro wrote: post #991

proverbialbunny wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a campaign finance law in 1971 that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In Buckley v. Valeo, the US Supreme Court ruled that campaign finance laws are freedom of speech, in that without such laws, the every day person is restricted from being heard when the wealthy are allowed to use money beyond what the common person can pay. Because of this, the court upheld limits on contributions to candidates ru…

Neither of those have to do with someone putting $500 down to run a political ad on Facebook. Local politicians, mayors, etc run political ads. Good luck policing all of that. If you block an individual from spending $500 on Facebook ads because of some law, you are violating that person's freedom of speech. That is entirely separate from campaign finance. Why stop there? Why not limit what Newspapers can say? They o…

Why are you repeatedly moving the bar?

Re: Twitter to ban political advertising

#1000

Post by ghostbrainalpha » Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

partiallypro wrote: post #69

proverbialbunny wrote: post #40

Campaign finance is illegal in most of the first world. If political ads were banned in the US, politicians wouldn't need money to get reelected (Ads get the majority of votes.). When a politician needs money to get reelected they have to take money from lobbyists. Banning political ads is crucial linchpin to getting money out of politics.

Political ads are free speech.

Political ads are "paid" free speech.