4 ms·

Slightly off-topic - why doesn't FB just ban all political ads? Is it really worth continuing to display them? Either have a coherent policy that the CEO can e

Slightly off-topic - why doesn't FB just ban all political ads? Is it really worth continuing to display them? Either have a coherent policy that the CEO can explain or just don't do it.

shaftoe 7y ago
There's a gray area that makes defining what is political complex when it comes to subjects that become politicized.
bertil 7y ago
There’s no clear separation of “political ads”: - candidates can be serious or not so much, but it’s unclear where the line is between the GOP and Vermin Supreme. - PACs represent the bulk of “political” spending: it’s also unclear where you set the line there; clear attack ads are not the same as a more generic charity defending the environment and supporting a candidate; you can’t ban one without banning the other, or you have to define clear rules that allow “Vote for a candidate that supports your values” but not anything more specific, where using the same symbol, colour, font, as a specific campaign becomes a problem. - If you ban any communications about the environment, gender equality, etc. commercial companies who bolster their ecological credential or empower women are becoming liminal and problematic when they really shouldn’t. - None of those questions can accept a US-centric answer: Facebook hosts political ads from 190 countries, where all of the above is slightly different. What counts as controversial in other countries would definitely surprise you. What counts as true, another argument in that debate isn’t clear: a lot of political promises like “we have the budget to pass that reform” can seem… “very bold and optimistic” to some fact-checkers. Facebook has struggled with fact-checkers in the past and felt it was preferable to downplay their role, given that previous scandal.
- Traster 7y ago
  >- PACs represent the bulk of “political” spending: it’s also unclear where you set the line there; clear attack ads are not the same as a more generic charity defending the environment and supporting a candidate; you can’t ban one without banning the other, or you have to define clear rules that allow “Vote for a candidate that supports your values” but not anything more specific, where using the same symbol, colour, font, as a specific campaign becomes a problem. Well, they're PACs. Political Action Committees. So if you're banning political ads it would be trivial to ban organisations that are registered as a 527 organisation. That seems like a screaming flashing bright red line there.
  - bertil 7y ago
    You would think so but tell that to anyone advertising to say, for instance, that Greta Thunberg is right or selling t-shirts insulting Trump and they'll be outraged--claiming that this is not political but essential. More generally, you would see a lot of people unwilling to provide documentation that they are not a 527, or a foreign entity.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    That will effectively prohibit all issue-based advertising. Maybe that's a good thing, but consider the scope and impact before advocating for such a sweeping change.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
orbifold 7y ago
In Germany every political party gets a fixed number of slots for TV-Spots basically free of charge ahead of an election. There is no other political advertisement allowed (only the parties themselves are allowed to advertise). Unfortunately neither newspapers nor internet advertisement is as strictly regulated, but I feel like it should be eventually as well.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  Similar in the UK - set up that way to stop money being able to buy elections. Overall, election spending has been very strictly controlled. One of the problems is recently people have being getting around this with hard to trace online campaigns - using "national funding" and effectively locally targeted online campaigns. I'd like to see people being properly sanctioned for breaking the rules. In my view there are few things more serious than trying to subvert democracy. It shouldn't be normalized like it is in the US.
  - orbifold 7y ago
    I agree, basically it should either not be allowed or strictly controlled how to advertise politics online. Targeted political advertisement should be banned completely. Then there is twitter, which also basically serves as a direct marketing channel for political parties. In Germany this is a huge problem especially with the AFD, they can publish lots of nonsense there, more or less unchallenged by facts or reason.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  In America, the usual argument is that such an approach would impair free speech, especially in telling third parties that they are not allowed to express views about an upcoming election.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Where do you draw the line though? I mean sure, you can ban ads promoting a political party or candidate - that's simple. But what about e.g. "awareness" campaigns about e.g. refugees? What about ads pretending to promote products to the LGBT community but targeted to be presented to conservatives / right-leaning people so that their bigotry will only increase? You can affect people's political affiliations and their voting behaviour in really insidious ways. I wouldn't be surprised if agents are active on HN that operate with that in mind.
- newen 7y ago
  I am sure people can debate for decades about where to draw the line. But many other countries have banned political ads and they drew the line somewhere.

Slightly off-topic - why doesn't FB just ban all political ads? Is it really worth continuing to display them? Either have a coherent policy that the CEO can explain or just don't do it.

shaftoe 7y ago

There's a gray area that makes defining what is political complex when it comes to subjects that become politicized.

bertil 7y ago

There’s no clear separation of “political ads”: - candidates can be serious or not so much, but it’s unclear where the line is between the GOP and Vermin Supreme. - PACs represent the bulk of “political” spending: it’s also unclear where you set the line there; clear attack ads are not the same as a more generic charity defending the environment and supporting a candidate; you can’t ban one without banning the other, or you have to define clear rules that allow “Vote for a candidate that supports your values” but not anything more specific, where using the same symbol, colour, font, as a specific campaign becomes a problem. - If you ban any communications about the environment, gender equality, etc. commercial companies who bolster their ecological credential or empower women are becoming liminal and problematic when they really shouldn’t. - None of those questions can accept a US-centric answer: Facebook hosts political ads from 190 countries, where all of the above is slightly different. What counts as controversial in other countries would definitely surprise you. What counts as true, another argument in that debate isn’t clear: a lot of political promises like “we have the budget to pass that reform” can seem… “very bold and optimistic” to some fact-checkers. Facebook has struggled with fact-checkers in the past and felt it was preferable to downplay their role, given that previous scandal.

Traster 7y ago
>- PACs represent the bulk of “political” spending: it’s also unclear where you set the line there; clear attack ads are not the same as a more generic charity defending the environment and supporting a candidate; you can’t ban one without banning the other, or you have to define clear rules that allow “Vote for a candidate that supports your values” but not anything more specific, where using the same symbol, colour, font, as a specific campaign becomes a problem. Well, they're PACs. Political Action Committees. So if you're banning political ads it would be trivial to ban organisations that are registered as a 527 organisation. That seems like a screaming flashing bright red line there.
- bertil 7y ago
  You would think so but tell that to anyone advertising to say, for instance, that Greta Thunberg is right or selling t-shirts insulting Trump and they'll be outraged--claiming that this is not political but essential. More generally, you would see a lot of people unwilling to provide documentation that they are not a 527, or a foreign entity.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  That will effectively prohibit all issue-based advertising. Maybe that's a good thing, but consider the scope and impact before advocating for such a sweeping change.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

orbifold 7y ago

In Germany every political party gets a fixed number of slots for TV-Spots basically free of charge ahead of an election. There is no other political advertisement allowed (only the parties themselves are allowed to advertise). Unfortunately neither newspapers nor internet advertisement is as strictly regulated, but I feel like it should be eventually as well.

DrScientist 7y ago
Similar in the UK - set up that way to stop money being able to buy elections. Overall, election spending has been very strictly controlled. One of the problems is recently people have being getting around this with hard to trace online campaigns - using "national funding" and effectively locally targeted online campaigns. I'd like to see people being properly sanctioned for breaking the rules. In my view there are few things more serious than trying to subvert democracy. It shouldn't be normalized like it is in the US.
- orbifold 7y ago
  I agree, basically it should either not be allowed or strictly controlled how to advertise politics online. Targeted political advertisement should be banned completely. Then there is twitter, which also basically serves as a direct marketing channel for political parties. In Germany this is a huge problem especially with the AFD, they can publish lots of nonsense there, more or less unchallenged by facts or reason.
pwinnski 7y ago
In America, the usual argument is that such an approach would impair free speech, especially in telling third parties that they are not allowed to express views about an upcoming election.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Where do you draw the line though? I mean sure, you can ban ads promoting a political party or candidate - that's simple. But what about e.g. "awareness" campaigns about e.g. refugees? What about ads pretending to promote products to the LGBT community but targeted to be presented to conservatives / right-leaning people so that their bigotry will only increase? You can affect people's political affiliations and their voting behaviour in really insidious ways. I wouldn't be surprised if agents are active on HN that operate with that in mind.

newen 7y ago
I am sure people can debate for decades about where to draw the line. But many other countries have banned political ads and they drew the line somewhere.