3 ms·

I think the notion of political advertising is to some extent unethical, because it relies heavily on marketing candidates rather than presenting their position

I think the notion of political advertising is to some extent unethical, because it relies heavily on marketing candidates rather than presenting their positions. It's on thing to have the relevant information made easily accesable and another to push a rhetoric and narrative that is purpusefully manipulative. I would say that an effective ad is manipulative, thus has no place in the conversation of governance. My main concern - which I haven't seen mentioned as much - is not how this data is being used to target voters with ads. At the end of the day if i can convince you of something with words that's fair game. I am concern with how this information is used to manipulate the voiting system - GERRYMANDERING. I can ignore political ads. But if they know enough about me to classify me into a party AND control districting that's a problem. I encourage open political discussion, but it seems like that is being exploited and commotatized with big data to our disadvantage. Finally, the big winners aren't gop/dems. It's the people selling them this data and lining their pockets with money.

smsm42 9y ago
> it relies heavily on marketing candidates rather than presenting their positions That's the same thing, only one is said in nefarious tone and then the same is said in neutral tone. If you are trying to convince somebody to change their mind (and that's the purpose of having political ads - if everybody already agrees with you, why waste any time?) you need to say something that would change their position. Which, described in nefarious tone, is "manipulation". Of course, if my team does it, it's "education" instead. > GERRYMANDERING Facebook or any social media has zero influence on districting. It's wholly in the hands of local politicians. If you want it to change, some "manipulative" ads (or other ways of explaining, like pamphlets, in person conversations, articles, books, marches, whatever works) are needed to elect different politicians or cause the current ones to change their actions out of fear of not being elected again if they don't. I don't see any other way of doing it, do you? Of course, if everybody follows your example and ignores political ads (and other political persuasion content, as being "manipulative"), then any change would be impossible - everybody would be convinced in the same things today as they were yesterday, and everything would remain the same. Maybe some hugely significant and catastrophic events would cause some people to change their minds, but without them being able to persuade their peers, it would be mostly insignificant.
- oldsklgdfth 9y ago
  >That's the same thing Yea, I'll conceed that. >Facebook or any social media has zero influence on districting I don't think facebook or big data are responsible for districting. I think that access to their data makes district gerrymandering a certainty, rather than some guessing game. In the past I'm guessing they had to go door-to-door to take the temprature on issues and try to figure out where people stand politically. Today some guy with access to this data - that we willingly make available - and a python script can do the same thing in a weekend with a much higher degree of success. I think this is a more significant consequence of the social media age, than say targeted ads. I can ignore the ads when I'm watching hulu. But I have no power over how it's being used against me. Maybe this an overly reductionist view on something that is far more complex and nuanced, but I'm open to changing my mind.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    I don't recall politicians ever having problem with setting up gerrymandering, way before Facebook was a thing. It doesn't have to be exact on the individual level, for its purposes plain old voting patterns data is more than enough.
    - oldsklgdfth 9y ago
      That sounds interesting and scary at the same time. Can you elaborate some more on that?

smsm42 9y ago

> it relies heavily on marketing candidates rather than presenting their positions That's the same thing, only one is said in nefarious tone and then the same is said in neutral tone. If you are trying to convince somebody to change their mind (and that's the purpose of having political ads - if everybody already agrees with you, why waste any time?) you need to say something that would change their position. Which, described in nefarious tone, is "manipulation". Of course, if my team does it, it's "education" instead. > GERRYMANDERING Facebook or any social media has zero influence on districting. It's wholly in the hands of local politicians. If you want it to change, some "manipulative" ads (or other ways of explaining, like pamphlets, in person conversations, articles, books, marches, whatever works) are needed to elect different politicians or cause the current ones to change their actions out of fear of not being elected again if they don't. I don't see any other way of doing it, do you? Of course, if everybody follows your example and ignores political ads (and other political persuasion content, as being "manipulative"), then any change would be impossible - everybody would be convinced in the same things today as they were yesterday, and everything would remain the same. Maybe some hugely significant and catastrophic events would cause some people to change their minds, but without them being able to persuade their peers, it would be mostly insignificant.

oldsklgdfth 9y ago
>That's the same thing Yea, I'll conceed that. >Facebook or any social media has zero influence on districting I don't think facebook or big data are responsible for districting. I think that access to their data makes district gerrymandering a certainty, rather than some guessing game. In the past I'm guessing they had to go door-to-door to take the temprature on issues and try to figure out where people stand politically. Today some guy with access to this data - that we willingly make available - and a python script can do the same thing in a weekend with a much higher degree of success. I think this is a more significant consequence of the social media age, than say targeted ads. I can ignore the ads when I'm watching hulu. But I have no power over how it's being used against me. Maybe this an overly reductionist view on something that is far more complex and nuanced, but I'm open to changing my mind.
- smsm42 9y ago
  I don't recall politicians ever having problem with setting up gerrymandering, way before Facebook was a thing. It doesn't have to be exact on the individual level, for its purposes plain old voting patterns data is more than enough.
  - oldsklgdfth 9y ago
    That sounds interesting and scary at the same time. Can you elaborate some more on that?