4 ms·

Can someone please explain the argument against passing laws forcing all adverts on advertising platforms like Facebook and Google to be searchable and transpar

by maym86 8y ago

Can someone please explain the argument against passing laws forcing all adverts on advertising platforms like Facebook and Google to be searchable and transparent so we can see who is purchasing them, the parameters used for targeting the advert and what they are publishing? I can't see a downside for the majority of people.

jonny_eh 8y ago
It'll be a hassle for Facebook? At this point, it's worth it.
dillondoyle 8y ago
Perhaps because 1st Amendment gives right to anonymous speech: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity Perhaps because it gives established players a big leg up in terms of compliance costs (imagine being a small news site having to create this searchable system etc)
- lumberjack 8y ago
  The 1st Amendment is just US law. What would be the argument elsewhere?
  - NeonVice 8y ago
    Retaliation by employers for funding certain speech. Violent retaliation for funding certain speech.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  There is no 1st Amendment in the EU.
- pimmen 8y ago
  (This is the EU, not the US, but I'll concede that people having the right to anonymous speech is a good idea) Your right to anonymous free speech does not mean Facebook is obligated to let you express that right, only that the government can't restrict your right to anonymous free speech. No reason you can't set up your own anonymous website.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dominotw 8y ago
> explain the argument against passing laws forcing If laws protect people. more laws = better? What is the downside of passing any law? In this case I could face discrimination at work if they found out that I was buying ads for my anti abortion website.
- maym86 8y ago
  > If laws protect people. more laws = better? What is the downside of passing any law? No this is a question about a specific law. Making it a general point about all laws is disingenuous. Why do anything ever?
  - dominotw 8y ago
    Did you read the second sentence starting with "In this case.."
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - maym86 8y ago
      You edited and added it after I had responded to your original post which didn't have the second sentence.
      - dominotw 8y ago
        No I didn't.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  Similar to what happened to Brendan Eich.

by maym86 8y ago

jonny_eh 8y ago

It'll be a hassle for Facebook? At this point, it's worth it.

dillondoyle 8y ago

Perhaps because 1st Amendment gives right to anonymous speech: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity Perhaps because it gives established players a big leg up in terms of compliance costs (imagine being a small news site having to create this searchable system etc)

lumberjack 8y ago
The 1st Amendment is just US law. What would be the argument elsewhere?
- NeonVice 8y ago
  Retaliation by employers for funding certain speech. Violent retaliation for funding certain speech.
cortesoft 8y ago
There is no 1st Amendment in the EU.
pimmen 8y ago
(This is the EU, not the US, but I'll concede that people having the right to anonymous speech is a good idea) Your right to anonymous free speech does not mean Facebook is obligated to let you express that right, only that the government can't restrict your right to anonymous free speech. No reason you can't set up your own anonymous website.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dominotw 8y ago

> explain the argument against passing laws forcing If laws protect people. more laws = better? What is the downside of passing any law? In this case I could face discrimination at work if they found out that I was buying ads for my anti abortion website.

maym86 8y ago
> If laws protect people. more laws = better? What is the downside of passing any law? No this is a question about a specific law. Making it a general point about all laws is disingenuous. Why do anything ever?
- dominotw 8y ago
  Did you read the second sentence starting with "In this case.."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - maym86 8y ago
    You edited and added it after I had responded to your original post which didn't have the second sentence.
    - dominotw 8y ago
      No I didn't.
commandlinefan 8y ago
Similar to what happened to Brendan Eich.