4 ms·

Candidates need to be able to reach voters in the best way they see fit. Online favors candidates that appeal to younger voters. This includes giving speeches,

Candidates need to be able to reach voters in the best way they see fit. Online favors candidates that appeal to younger voters. This includes giving speeches, debating, advertising, etc., which takes funding. So we allow candidates to collect donations up to a reasonable limit. Unrelated to that there are private citizens, unaffiliated with the candidates, that want to exercise their free speech by publicly endorsing a candidate. They do not collaborate with the candidate. They just speak through any medium they like. How do you suppress that without suppressing free speech?

javajosh 10y ago
In terms of speech, advertising on network television excludes a lot of people (those without a TV). Making phone calls excludes a lot of people. They are all different channels. Online is the ultimate channel because it is ultra-democratic: anyone can grow a following. Moreover, it's the ultimate channel because it's bidirectional - you can begin to form your own personal platform just off of your reactions (passive and active) to what you view. Personal platforms can be used to locate candidates, causes, like-minded individuals, and specific policy fights, protests and other tasks and actions that ultimately make the world closer to how you want it to be. This is what politics should be like. This is what the polity should be like. >How do you suppress that without suppressing free speech? You don't suppress personal endorsements. Insofar as a person embodies your own views (or close enough) then a personal endorsement is quite valid. Even with this system a candidate will endure far more scrutiny (and endure far more ignorance flung in their direction) so finding a "moral clone" in the world with thicker skin is a good thing.