3 ms·

hot take: facebook should not legally be allowed to show political ads in any country.

by mylons 8y ago

conanbatt 8y ago
More like anti-constitutional take.
dane-pgp 8y ago
Just facebook or all social media platforms? All online platforms? All forms of media? Perhaps a clearer approach is to only allow political advertising to be bought using money given by citizens (and limiting the amount each citizen can contribute in each election). In the case of the US political system, this would probably require an amendment to the constitution, but such an idea is being seriously proposed: https://campaignfinancereform.org/amendment https://campaignfinancereform.org/amendment
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. The wisest form of regulation is to assume bad actors from step 1 and try to create systems where the bad actors are encouraged to abide the rules, not out of threats, but because it benefits them in some way. For instance, the EU are aiming to force Netflix (and similar operations) to have 30% of their catalogue sourced from local productions... or else. It's not tough to predict the result. They'll license the premium stuff (which they probably already have) and then just stuff the rest with filler to hit the minimum. Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    > I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. So instead we let all of the players become bad actors without consequence? > Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too. And then reward the bad actors for being bad actors in the first place by depriving society of the taxes they owe? I think it's safe to assume that the politicians making those deals will be often be bad actors too, and courts rarely let cities and other governments back out of those deals just because the deal makers were corrupt.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      You're straw manning. The point is you need to consider reality before trying to decide how to tackle problems. Your regulations are not only not going to levy any consequences to bad actors, it's going to directly reward their bad behavior. They're the ones that are going to be able to capably break the law, and work to minimize consequences in any case where they're caught. But the law will severely hamper good actors that try to abide it. I think you realize this which is why you're now resorting to 'Well, so we just them all get away with this without consequence!?' And the answer there that when doing 'something' is less effective than doing nothing, you don't have any choice. To do otherwise is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.
WhiteSage 8y ago
In Spain it is forbidden to show results of electoral polls in the last week before elections, to avoid shifting the public opinion. It does not matter, you can get polls of all kinds by just lurking around in twitter.
- Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
  Indeed that particular part of the law is a joke. However, also in Spain, things like advertising time for political parties on TV or on city streets are regulated so that each party gets a share of the space/time proportional to their last election results (and they cannot buy more advertising space/time than that, even on private media). It's very far from perfect but it's at least better than an unregulated market where the reach of each party depends purely on money. Unfortunately, I don't think the regulation covers social network advertising. As usual, the law lags behind technological changes.

hot take: facebook should not legally be allowed to show political ads in any country.

by mylons 8y ago

hot take: facebook should not legally be allowed to show political ads in any country.

conanbatt 8y ago

More like anti-constitutional take.

dane-pgp 8y ago

Just facebook or all social media platforms? All online platforms? All forms of media? Perhaps a clearer approach is to only allow political advertising to be bought using money given by citizens (and limiting the amount each citizen can contribute in each election). In the case of the US political system, this would probably require an amendment to the constitution, but such an idea is being seriously proposed: https://campaignfinancereform.org/amendment https://campaignfinancereform.org/amendment

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. The wisest form of regulation is to assume bad actors from step 1 and try to create systems where the bad actors are encouraged to abide the rules, not out of threats, but because it benefits them in some way. For instance, the EU are aiming to force Netflix (and similar operations) to have 30% of their catalogue sourced from local productions... or else. It's not tough to predict the result. They'll license the premium stuff (which they probably already have) and then just stuff the rest with filler to hit the minimum. Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too.
- civilitty 8y ago
  > I think this sort of ideal is more likely to reward than punish bad actors. I'm certain you can think of a million and one ways companies/PACs/individuals/etc could influence others in ways that would be difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to them. The player that tries to play by the rules and ensures that all of their messaging on the up and up is simply going to get burnt. So instead we let all of the players become bad actors without consequence? > Imagine if instead that Netflix and other companies received a tax deduction which was proportional to the percent of time their customers spent consuming locally sourced material. Now suddenly there is a positive incentive for the good behavior, and Netflix would almost certainly be going out of their way to try to get you to watch locally sourced material. On the other hand people often want to have their cake, and eat it too. And then reward the bad actors for being bad actors in the first place by depriving society of the taxes they owe? I think it's safe to assume that the politicians making those deals will be often be bad actors too, and courts rarely let cities and other governments back out of those deals just because the deal makers were corrupt.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    You're straw manning. The point is you need to consider reality before trying to decide how to tackle problems. Your regulations are not only not going to levy any consequences to bad actors, it's going to directly reward their bad behavior. They're the ones that are going to be able to capably break the law, and work to minimize consequences in any case where they're caught. But the law will severely hamper good actors that try to abide it. I think you realize this which is why you're now resorting to 'Well, so we just them all get away with this without consequence!?' And the answer there that when doing 'something' is less effective than doing nothing, you don't have any choice. To do otherwise is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.

WhiteSage 8y ago

In Spain it is forbidden to show results of electoral polls in the last week before elections, to avoid shifting the public opinion. It does not matter, you can get polls of all kinds by just lurking around in twitter.

Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
Indeed that particular part of the law is a joke. However, also in Spain, things like advertising time for political parties on TV or on city streets are regulated so that each party gets a share of the space/time proportional to their last election results (and they cannot buy more advertising space/time than that, even on private media). It's very far from perfect but it's at least better than an unregulated market where the reach of each party depends purely on money. Unfortunately, I don't think the regulation covers social network advertising. As usual, the law lags behind technological changes.