5 ms·

> Election integrity is a media hysteria. Nobody is forcing anyone to vote in a particular way. I think transparency is a real issue - knowing who is funding t

> Election integrity is a media hysteria. Nobody is forcing anyone to vote in a particular way. I think transparency is a real issue - knowing who is funding those adverts and campaigns and putting controls on campaign spending is important. Sure, no-one is forcing you to vote a particular way. But if they can control what you see, here and know about an issue, they don't need to force you - do they?

marcrosoft 8y ago
> knowing who is funding those adverts and campaigns and putting controls on campaign spending is important. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for anti-privacy by _forcing_ advertisers into "transparency"? > putting controls on campaign spending is important That sounds dangerous. How would you feel if we put some campaign spending controls on campaigns you _agree_ with and promote? Controlling campaign spending is a ridiculous notion anyways because there is (fortunately) no global law. Even if there was, you can bet there would be a black market.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  Campaign spending limits and requiring the publication of some political donations is settled law in many countries. In fact, this is true to at least some degree in the US, too. These are not new ideas and the debate about whether they are worth implementing has already been won. The problem is that online advertising can get past existing laws.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Look, the issue is there's a pretty steep gradient here. There's the unwashed masses making just enough to survive, and a small group of millionaires and billionaires making calculated use of millions to secure policies that will print them billions in the future. Pretty sure some quick look-ups will show there are working definitions for this disparity in election literature. So, while I appreciate your "Americans aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires" version of equality for the farce it is, I'd appreciate it if you tried mangling the truth somewhere else.
- Angostura 8y ago
  > If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for anti-privacy by _forcing_ advertisers into "transparency"? That's absolutely correct. If you donate more than a certain sum to campaign, you should be forced to be transparent about it. > That sounds dangerous. How would you feel if we put some campaign spending controls on campaigns you _agree_ with and promote? I live in a country where all political parties are bound by exactly such rules. Moreover TV advertising by political parties are is explicity banned. Instead parties are allocated short 'Party political broadcast' slots on the main channels. It doesn't feel particularly "dangerous". There doesn't need to be a global law.
sixothree 8y ago
> Sure, no-one is forcing you to vote a particular way. Persuasion works and can be bought with money. It would be naive to think any of us in this thread are immune to persuasion.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Yes, but we all want to know who is doing the persuading.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    And we do because advocacy has three pillars Character Emotion Rational
    - robdachshund 8y ago
      You mean persuasion? Ethos, logos, pathos.
- bryan_w 8y ago
  This reply doesn't persuade me to belive that persuasion works, thus proving that people can't be arbitrary persuaded into ideas that they don't agree with.
  - DougN7 8y ago
    > thus proving ... Seriously? There is a $20 Billion dollar advertising industry with countless studies behind it, and hundreds of thousands of people working in, all of which says persuasion works. You’re going to need a little more proof.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Excellent. Therefore we should ban all political advertising - because such a ban will have no effect.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

marcrosoft 8y ago

> knowing who is funding those adverts and campaigns and putting controls on campaign spending is important. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for anti-privacy by _forcing_ advertisers into "transparency"? > putting controls on campaign spending is important That sounds dangerous. How would you feel if we put some campaign spending controls on campaigns you _agree_ with and promote? Controlling campaign spending is a ridiculous notion anyways because there is (fortunately) no global law. Even if there was, you can bet there would be a black market.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
Campaign spending limits and requiring the publication of some political donations is settled law in many countries. In fact, this is true to at least some degree in the US, too. These are not new ideas and the debate about whether they are worth implementing has already been won. The problem is that online advertising can get past existing laws.
killjoywashere 8y ago
Look, the issue is there's a pretty steep gradient here. There's the unwashed masses making just enough to survive, and a small group of millionaires and billionaires making calculated use of millions to secure policies that will print them billions in the future. Pretty sure some quick look-ups will show there are working definitions for this disparity in election literature. So, while I appreciate your "Americans aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires" version of equality for the farce it is, I'd appreciate it if you tried mangling the truth somewhere else.
Angostura 8y ago
> If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for anti-privacy by _forcing_ advertisers into "transparency"? That's absolutely correct. If you donate more than a certain sum to campaign, you should be forced to be transparent about it. > That sounds dangerous. How would you feel if we put some campaign spending controls on campaigns you _agree_ with and promote? I live in a country where all political parties are bound by exactly such rules. Moreover TV advertising by political parties are is explicity banned. Instead parties are allocated short 'Party political broadcast' slots on the main channels. It doesn't feel particularly "dangerous". There doesn't need to be a global law.

sixothree 8y ago

> Sure, no-one is forcing you to vote a particular way. Persuasion works and can be bought with money. It would be naive to think any of us in this thread are immune to persuasion.

enraged_camel 8y ago
Yes, but we all want to know who is doing the persuading.
- ddingus 8y ago
  And we do because advocacy has three pillars Character Emotion Rational
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    You mean persuasion? Ethos, logos, pathos.
bryan_w 8y ago
This reply doesn't persuade me to belive that persuasion works, thus proving that people can't be arbitrary persuaded into ideas that they don't agree with.
- DougN7 8y ago
  > thus proving ... Seriously? There is a $20 Billion dollar advertising industry with countless studies behind it, and hundreds of thousands of people working in, all of which says persuasion works. You’re going to need a little more proof.
- Angostura 8y ago
  Excellent. Therefore we should ban all political advertising - because such a ban will have no effect.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]