4 ms·

Should we do the same with TV and billboards? >Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns.

by lucio 8y ago

hadrien01 8y ago
That's how it's done in my country, France: candidates can't pay for political ads. They have equally-sized and free-to-use billboards in front of public buildings [0] and a free one-minute-and-a-half-per-day ad space on public television [1]. That's it. [0] http://dspagnou.celeonet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/degradation-panneau-electoral-004.JPG http://dspagnou.celeonet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/degra... [1] For fun, the 2017 ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__Il8Z7lrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__Il8Z7lrg
- taurath 8y ago
  How much campaigning happens on Facebook, or through Facebook groups I wonder?
  - hadrien01 8y ago
    As ads or promoted posts, zero. Through Facebook pages, well, quite much, with varying degrees of success. Extreme presidential candidates last year (Mélenchon for the far-left and Le Pen for the far-right) had I think the best participation numbers online, and a pretty good YouTube strategy (almost daily explanatory videos). Fringe candidates (Asselineau, Dupont-Aignan) are also quite good online. Our current president, Macron (liberal in the non-American sense of the term), also had a good online strategy, but the other candidates were forgettable at best. You're not limited on what you can do on a political Facebook page, as long as you don't pay for promotion, respect expression rules (no defamation or hate speech), and stop campaigning two days before election day. edit: replaced discrimination by defamation; still not sure about the translation but I think it fits more
- bluecalm 8y ago
  Can they pay for their own website? What about a website about their ideas? What about linking to that website? Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian. It's sure great for established players though as they are already known and get a lot of air time anyway while the competition can't even pay to try to convince others to their ideas.
  - hadrien01 8y ago
    They can have their own website, but only promoted through organic means. > Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian Europe, with its vastly different past, has a very different view on free speech compared to the US. We don't allow unlimited free speech, but we don't view that as censorship. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. Hate speech is condemned through most of Europe (one of our far-right politicians in France has been condemned, and I think rightly so, for dismissing Holocaust as a 'detail of history'). You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment.
    - chrismanfrank 8y ago
      > You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment. The question then is...should YOU be the one to decide what is "better"? Who should be given that kind of power? In an ideal world, a benevolent philosopher king would have that power. In the real world, maybe it's best no one has it. Maybe it's better to cast the ring into the fire.
      - wyattpeak 8y ago
        This sort of argument is the ultimate dead end. Shall we have no legislation on anything which isn't universally considered beneficial? Besides which, choosing no legislation is a choice in itself. Having no law on speech isn't a middle-ground, it's an extreme. It's an understandable extreme, and though I disagree with it in limited fashion I don't think it's an unreasonable case to make. But it is nevertheless not the balanced middle-ground choice you're presenting it as.
- briandear 8y ago
  They can wheatpaste their damned posters on every possible surface of a town though.

Should we do the same with TV and billboards? >Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns.

by lucio 8y ago

Should we do the same with TV and billboards? >Plus, less money raised and spent by political campaigns.

That's how it's done in my country, France: candidates can't pay for political ads. They have equally-sized and free-to-use billboards in front of public buildings [0] and a free one-minute-and-a-half-per-day ad space on public television [1]. That's it. [0] http://dspagnou.celeonet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/degradation-panneau-electoral-004.JPG http://dspagnou.celeonet.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/degra... [1] For fun, the 2017 ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__Il8Z7lrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n__Il8Z7lrg

taurath 8y ago
How much campaigning happens on Facebook, or through Facebook groups I wonder?
- hadrien01 8y ago
  As ads or promoted posts, zero. Through Facebook pages, well, quite much, with varying degrees of success. Extreme presidential candidates last year (Mélenchon for the far-left and Le Pen for the far-right) had I think the best participation numbers online, and a pretty good YouTube strategy (almost daily explanatory videos). Fringe candidates (Asselineau, Dupont-Aignan) are also quite good online. Our current president, Macron (liberal in the non-American sense of the term), also had a good online strategy, but the other candidates were forgettable at best. You're not limited on what you can do on a political Facebook page, as long as you don't pay for promotion, respect expression rules (no defamation or hate speech), and stop campaigning two days before election day. edit: replaced discrimination by defamation; still not sure about the translation but I think it fits more
bluecalm 8y ago
Can they pay for their own website? What about a website about their ideas? What about linking to that website? Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian. It's sure great for established players though as they are already known and get a lot of air time anyway while the competition can't even pay to try to convince others to their ideas.
- hadrien01 8y ago
  They can have their own website, but only promoted through organic means. > Limiting speech like that sounds dystopian Europe, with its vastly different past, has a very different view on free speech compared to the US. We don't allow unlimited free speech, but we don't view that as censorship. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. Hate speech is condemned through most of Europe (one of our far-right politicians in France has been condemned, and I think rightly so, for dismissing Holocaust as a 'detail of history'). You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment.
  - chrismanfrank 8y ago
    > You see that as a dystopia. I see that as a better political and social environment. The question then is...should YOU be the one to decide what is "better"? Who should be given that kind of power? In an ideal world, a benevolent philosopher king would have that power. In the real world, maybe it's best no one has it. Maybe it's better to cast the ring into the fire.
    - wyattpeak 8y ago
      This sort of argument is the ultimate dead end. Shall we have no legislation on anything which isn't universally considered beneficial? Besides which, choosing no legislation is a choice in itself. Having no law on speech isn't a middle-ground, it's an extreme. It's an understandable extreme, and though I disagree with it in limited fashion I don't think it's an unreasonable case to make. But it is nevertheless not the balanced middle-ground choice you're presenting it as.
briandear 8y ago
They can wheatpaste their damned posters on every possible surface of a town though.