6 ms·

"Facebook has refused to provide the British parliament with the names of individuals behind a shadowy network backing an extreme ‘no deal’ Brexit outcome over

"Facebook has refused to provide the British parliament with the names of individuals behind a shadowy network backing an extreme ‘no deal’ Brexit outcome over a government-negotiated compromise." Good? Why on earth should governments be allowed to pressure companies to disclose who is advertising on their platform? It's not like this company is breaking into people's houses and forcing them to do things at gun point, they're just running ads. Honestly, if an ad can convince people that your position is bunk, maybe it's not that great of a position to begin with.

johneth 8y ago
Political advertising is regulated in the UK.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  This seems like a great example as to why that's a bad idea.
  - johneth 8y ago
    That sentence makes no sense.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Only during campaigns. This sword cuts both ways. The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain, let alone things like unbilled time of the civil service. They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This, we are told, is OK, because the spending happened a few weeks before the official campaigning period began, and thus the usual rules about political advertising did not apply. Well, if these rules being applied to the letter can let the Remain campaigners flout the spirit of the spending rules (which is fine by me - that's the point of written rules) then for sure, this campaign also doesn't have to follow any of those rules, as it's outside the election / referendum controlled periods.
  - benj111 8y ago
    The government sent out that mailshot, not the remain campaign. Same with the unbilled civil service time. During an election should the incumbent party be billed for all the extra security for the Prime Minister, Chancellor etc? We have party politics, sometimes its hard/impossible to separate government from party.
  - stordoff 8y ago
    > The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain As benj111 points out, it was the _Government_, not the Remain campaign. Different rules apply to them (they are prohibited from campaigning _at all_ during the 28 days prior to the referendum). Furthermore, a large percentage of distribution (to England) was done at a spend time when the spending rules did not apply at all (which to my understanding means the Leave campaign could have _also_ spend more during that time). > They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This is an exaggeration. The cost of the mailshot was £9.3m[1] - the Leave campaign could spend up to £7m (in the regulated time - as above, I believe it is unlimited outside of that), with UKIP a further £4m (and other groups could spend up to £700k). More, yes, as the Remain campaign could _also_ spend up to £7m, but "far, far more" feels like an overstatement. [1] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7579/CBP-7579.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...
    - repolfx 8y ago
      This is sophistry - the Remain campaign was the government. It was the official position of the government and the entire thing was organised by them. There was simply no distinction between them at all. Again, people here are finding ways to excuse behaviour for their favoured team based on legalistic readings of the rules. Which is fine, if it's applied consistently. Of course it isn't because the goal here is not to be fairly applying campaigning rules, but rather to try and stop the UK leaving the EU via any means possible.
EastLondonCoder 8y ago
Because in order to make an informed choice in a democracy there are regulations in place to ensure spending limits and puts an identity on political advertising. An example of what you don't want is the heavy investment in Brexit and Trump by Russia
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I don't care who invests in advertising. If someone has something to say, they should be allowed to say it and I as the reader can decide for myself if I agree or not. I don't need to government doing that for me.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    Do you think advertising works, to influence outcomes? (There are a lot of people betting enormous sums of money that it does.) Should hostile nation states be allowed to advertise anonymously to influence electoral outcomes? Do you think the people should get a say in whether hostile nations get to influence electoral outcomes? The government is the agent of the people.
  - b_tterc_p 8y ago
    And if a politician makes specific political promises to specific populations which are contradictory? Or if an ad company sends you lies proportional to the amount of bullshit you are analytically predicted to receive? Or if a foreign government with clear malicious motives want to spew chaos by posing controversial chaos and inciting arguments between two populations?
  - jmhnilbog 8y ago
    Everything that you've ever encountered has made some tiny impression on you. Advertising is a "weaponized" process that aims to force a set of impressions on people where the agents behind it think that they know how those impressions will alter their behavior. Even if you think that you are not influenced by advertising -- though you certainly are in some way, since you are experiencing it -- you have to see that unregulated media platforms are magnifying all kinds of kookiness.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
You don't want a company to abide by the law of the lands in which it operates? Political advertising is regulated in many countries. So why would you draw a distinction with breaking into a house? The only difference is they have not chosen to break that law, yet. Not liking the law is an entirely different matter.
- ameister14 8y ago
  They are abiding with the law, though. They have been asked for information and replied that they don't just give out information because people ask - essentially they said 'come back with a warrant.' That's perfectly reasonable.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    It would be if the select committee system were an organ of the police. They are not, and warrants are not required.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Ok, so the select committee system questions have compulsory answers? In the US, the committee would have to subpoena in order to legally force the answer. Is that not the case here?
      - topynate 8y ago
        The Constitutional Society wrote an 86-page paper in 2012 attempting to show that any such powers are extinct, and that primary legislation is necessary to restore them: https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-Committees-and-Coercive-Powers-Clarity-or-Confusion.pdf https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-... But late last year, a select committee exercised these powers anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
happytoexplain 8y ago
>if an ad can convince people that your position is bunk, maybe it's not that great of a position to begin with. I disagree. Ideas are powerful and propaganda, media, and advertisement are powerful idea spreaders. This power is totally irrelevant to whether or not the idea is moral, realistic, or even just factually true
- Angostura 8y ago
  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the antivax movement is restricted to a handful of cranks.
gadders 8y ago
No Deal Brexit isn't extreme, but good effort on trying to shift the Overton Window.
- benj111 8y ago
  What is more extreme? Firing off a few farewell missiles? A no deal Brexit is literally the most extreme Brexit. There is nothing more 'Brexity'.
  - gadders 8y ago
    Having a Brexit that is Brexity is entirely the point, no? What is the point of a Brexit that is a bit Brexity?
    - benj111 8y ago
      Well most of the current predicament is that it was never decided how Brexity the Brexit should be, I don't think it follows that just because we voted for a Brexit, we should jump off the deep end and go for the most extreme version.
- stordoff 8y ago
  According to the Government's Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019 document: > This estimates that the UK economy would be 6.3-9% smaller in the long term in a no deal scenario (after around 15 years) than it otherwise would have been when compared with today’s arrangements, assuming no action is taken. > Although our food supply is diverse, resilient, and sourced from a wide variety of countries, the potential disruption to trade across the Short Channel Crossings would lead to reduced availability and choice of products. > HMRC has estimated that the administrative burden on businesses from customs declarations alone, on current (2016) UK-EU trade in goods could be around £13bn p.a. That feels pretty extreme to me. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781768/Implications_for_Business_and_Trade_of_a_No_Deal_Exit_on_29_March_2019.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

johneth 8y ago

Political advertising is regulated in the UK.

malvosenior 8y ago
This seems like a great example as to why that's a bad idea.
- johneth 8y ago
  That sentence makes no sense.
repolfx 8y ago
Only during campaigns. This sword cuts both ways. The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain, let alone things like unbilled time of the civil service. They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This, we are told, is OK, because the spending happened a few weeks before the official campaigning period began, and thus the usual rules about political advertising did not apply. Well, if these rules being applied to the letter can let the Remain campaigners flout the spirit of the spending rules (which is fine by me - that's the point of written rules) then for sure, this campaign also doesn't have to follow any of those rules, as it's outside the election / referendum controlled periods.
- benj111 8y ago
  The government sent out that mailshot, not the remain campaign. Same with the unbilled civil service time. During an election should the incumbent party be billed for all the extra security for the Prime Minister, Chancellor etc? We have party politics, sometimes its hard/impossible to separate government from party.
- stordoff 8y ago
  > The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain As benj111 points out, it was the _Government_, not the Remain campaign. Different rules apply to them (they are prohibited from campaigning _at all_ during the 28 days prior to the referendum). Furthermore, a large percentage of distribution (to England) was done at a spend time when the spending rules did not apply at all (which to my understanding means the Leave campaign could have _also_ spend more during that time). > They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This is an exaggeration. The cost of the mailshot was £9.3m[1] - the Leave campaign could spend up to £7m (in the regulated time - as above, I believe it is unlimited outside of that), with UKIP a further £4m (and other groups could spend up to £700k). More, yes, as the Remain campaign could _also_ spend up to £7m, but "far, far more" feels like an overstatement. [1] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7579/CBP-7579.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...
  - repolfx 8y ago
    This is sophistry - the Remain campaign was the government. It was the official position of the government and the entire thing was organised by them. There was simply no distinction between them at all. Again, people here are finding ways to excuse behaviour for their favoured team based on legalistic readings of the rules. Which is fine, if it's applied consistently. Of course it isn't because the goal here is not to be fairly applying campaigning rules, but rather to try and stop the UK leaving the EU via any means possible.

EastLondonCoder 8y ago

Because in order to make an informed choice in a democracy there are regulations in place to ensure spending limits and puts an identity on political advertising. An example of what you don't want is the heavy investment in Brexit and Trump by Russia

malvosenior 8y ago
I don't care who invests in advertising. If someone has something to say, they should be allowed to say it and I as the reader can decide for myself if I agree or not. I don't need to government doing that for me.
- barrkel 8y ago
  Do you think advertising works, to influence outcomes? (There are a lot of people betting enormous sums of money that it does.) Should hostile nation states be allowed to advertise anonymously to influence electoral outcomes? Do you think the people should get a say in whether hostile nations get to influence electoral outcomes? The government is the agent of the people.
- b_tterc_p 8y ago
  And if a politician makes specific political promises to specific populations which are contradictory? Or if an ad company sends you lies proportional to the amount of bullshit you are analytically predicted to receive? Or if a foreign government with clear malicious motives want to spew chaos by posing controversial chaos and inciting arguments between two populations?
- jmhnilbog 8y ago
  Everything that you've ever encountered has made some tiny impression on you. Advertising is a "weaponized" process that aims to force a set of impressions on people where the agents behind it think that they know how those impressions will alter their behavior. Even if you think that you are not influenced by advertising -- though you certainly are in some way, since you are experiencing it -- you have to see that unregulated media platforms are magnifying all kinds of kookiness.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

You don't want a company to abide by the law of the lands in which it operates? Political advertising is regulated in many countries. So why would you draw a distinction with breaking into a house? The only difference is they have not chosen to break that law, yet. Not liking the law is an entirely different matter.

ameister14 8y ago
They are abiding with the law, though. They have been asked for information and replied that they don't just give out information because people ask - essentially they said 'come back with a warrant.' That's perfectly reasonable.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It would be if the select committee system were an organ of the police. They are not, and warrants are not required.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    Ok, so the select committee system questions have compulsory answers? In the US, the committee would have to subpoena in order to legally force the answer. Is that not the case here?
    - topynate 8y ago
      The Constitutional Society wrote an 86-page paper in 2012 attempting to show that any such powers are extinct, and that primary legislation is necessary to restore them: https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-Committees-and-Coercive-Powers-Clarity-or-Confusion.pdf https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-... But late last year, a select committee exercised these powers anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize-cache-facebook-internal-papers https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...

happytoexplain 8y ago

>if an ad can convince people that your position is bunk, maybe it's not that great of a position to begin with. I disagree. Ideas are powerful and propaganda, media, and advertisement are powerful idea spreaders. This power is totally irrelevant to whether or not the idea is moral, realistic, or even just factually true

Angostura 8y ago
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the antivax movement is restricted to a handful of cranks.

gadders 8y ago

No Deal Brexit isn't extreme, but good effort on trying to shift the Overton Window.

benj111 8y ago
What is more extreme? Firing off a few farewell missiles? A no deal Brexit is literally the most extreme Brexit. There is nothing more 'Brexity'.
- gadders 8y ago
  Having a Brexit that is Brexity is entirely the point, no? What is the point of a Brexit that is a bit Brexity?
  - benj111 8y ago
    Well most of the current predicament is that it was never decided how Brexity the Brexit should be, I don't think it follows that just because we voted for a Brexit, we should jump off the deep end and go for the most extreme version.
stordoff 8y ago
According to the Government's Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019 document: > This estimates that the UK economy would be 6.3-9% smaller in the long term in a no deal scenario (after around 15 years) than it otherwise would have been when compared with today’s arrangements, assuming no action is taken. > Although our food supply is diverse, resilient, and sourced from a wide variety of countries, the potential disruption to trade across the Short Channel Crossings would lead to reduced availability and choice of products. > HMRC has estimated that the administrative burden on businesses from customs declarations alone, on current (2016) UK-EU trade in goods could be around £13bn p.a. That feels pretty extreme to me. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781768/Implications_for_Business_and_Trade_of_a_No_Deal_Exit_on_29_March_2019.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...