3 ms·

Will this make a meaningful difference? Wont this just push all the propaganda off onto Super-PAC type organizations?

creyes 7y ago
Doesn't catch entities like PAC's and Fox News though
akersten 7y ago
A wise mantra is to not let perfect be the enemy of good. Those PACs were likely already going to propagandize. It's not like they suddenly become more powerful or concentrated because the state media promoted posts that happened to align with them disappeared. Also in some instances like foreign influence (e.g. the HK protests and surrounding state ad campaigns from which this policy ostensibly stems), there may not even be a corresponding PAC. So shutting down that advertising could be surprisingly significant.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  Good points, and good outlook on the topic. Thank you.
jonnycomputer 7y ago
I am generally suspicious of claims that policy enforcement is useless because it will just be circumvented. We hear it all the time, e.g. don't tax the rich because the rich will just find ways to avoid paying them. don't enforce fuel efficiency standards, because car companies will just cheat their way out of them. it goes on and on. don't bother with security because they'll find a way to get you if they really want you. But in the end, the effectiveness of regulation is proportional to the degree of effort avoidance or circumvention requires. I say, "Twitter: good call." Let states speak for themselves.
- rhizome 7y ago
  It's the Nirvana fallacy, like the pro-gun argument requiring every gun control initiative to eliminate all gun crimes.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    In the US, the bar to repress a right requires more than a theory. You can't put restrictions on the right to vote because it might cut down on voter fraud. Nation states however have no such right. Thus the ability to bar their propaganda is much lower, as it should be. edit: limit to bar in p2
    - rhizome 7y ago
      As few restrictions on the right to vote as there are, the comparison is inapt. What you may be missing is that there are plenty of constraints on the act of voting, as well as the process. You can't pay for votes, you can't have someone sign their vote-by-mail ballot and fill it in for them, you can't vote in-person in someone else's stead (even though it doesn't create an extra vote), and so on. There are also plenty of restrictions (at least in the text of the law) on how to handle the ballots themselves. None of these are restrictions on the right to vote.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  Well the argument is not completely bunk. For example, "do not criminalize weed, because it will push incentives past a tipping point for the opening of unregulated cross-border trade routes". Decisions are not made in a vacuum, there are always fringe effects.
rhizome 7y ago
Yes, I'm sure it will be a meaningful difference. Will it eliminate all of the problems with political finance? No, and it's unreasonable to expect it to do so.
kpU8efre7r 7y ago
So don't police your platform in case it pushes the problem elsewhere? If it goes elsewhere the parties that work in those domains can deal with it.

Doesn't catch entities like PAC's and Fox News though

A wise mantra is to not let perfect be the enemy of good. Those PACs were likely already going to propagandize. It's not like they suddenly become more powerful or concentrated because the state media promoted posts that happened to align with them disappeared. Also in some instances like foreign influence (e.g. the HK protests and surrounding state ad campaigns from which this policy ostensibly stems), there may not even be a corresponding PAC. So shutting down that advertising could be surprisingly significant.

farisjarrah 7y ago
Good points, and good outlook on the topic. Thank you.

jonnycomputer 7y ago

I am generally suspicious of claims that policy enforcement is useless because it will just be circumvented. We hear it all the time, e.g. don't tax the rich because the rich will just find ways to avoid paying them. don't enforce fuel efficiency standards, because car companies will just cheat their way out of them. it goes on and on. don't bother with security because they'll find a way to get you if they really want you. But in the end, the effectiveness of regulation is proportional to the degree of effort avoidance or circumvention requires. I say, "Twitter: good call." Let states speak for themselves.

rhizome 7y ago
It's the Nirvana fallacy, like the pro-gun argument requiring every gun control initiative to eliminate all gun crimes.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  In the US, the bar to repress a right requires more than a theory. You can't put restrictions on the right to vote because it might cut down on voter fraud. Nation states however have no such right. Thus the ability to bar their propaganda is much lower, as it should be. edit: limit to bar in p2
  - rhizome 7y ago
    As few restrictions on the right to vote as there are, the comparison is inapt. What you may be missing is that there are plenty of constraints on the act of voting, as well as the process. You can't pay for votes, you can't have someone sign their vote-by-mail ballot and fill it in for them, you can't vote in-person in someone else's stead (even though it doesn't create an extra vote), and so on. There are also plenty of restrictions (at least in the text of the law) on how to handle the ballots themselves. None of these are restrictions on the right to vote.
CameronNemo 7y ago
Well the argument is not completely bunk. For example, "do not criminalize weed, because it will push incentives past a tipping point for the opening of unregulated cross-border trade routes". Decisions are not made in a vacuum, there are always fringe effects.

rhizome 7y ago

Yes, I'm sure it will be a meaningful difference. Will it eliminate all of the problems with political finance? No, and it's unreasonable to expect it to do so.

kpU8efre7r 7y ago

So don't police your platform in case it pushes the problem elsewhere? If it goes elsewhere the parties that work in those domains can deal with it.