4 ms·

Why should they? People can make up their own minds we don't need to restrict online advertisements. False messages appear in all other forms of advertisement,

Why should they? People can make up their own minds we don't need to restrict online advertisements. False messages appear in all other forms of advertisement, facebook or twitter is no different.

otterley 7y ago
Because the potential for societal harm is arguably greater when politicians manipulate the population through falsehoods than it is by purchasing a good or service based on false advertising. And consumers have direct recourse to the law (i.e., damages) for fraud, whereas no such recourse is available to the public until re-election if they elect a politician based on falsehoods.
- reroute1 7y ago
  But how is this different than political ads on the radio or tv or a billboard? Sounds like you are against political advertisements of any kind. I don't disagree there could be damage done by misinformation, but I don't think that's a compelling reason to ban political ads. I still think people should look at the ads and decide for themselves what is true.
  - otterley 7y ago
    This is a tricky question. Traditionally, communication with the public was mainly two-way; the public could directly question candidates and hold them accountable there if the candidate lied. I’m very much for traditional free speech here as there is direct accountability. With the rise of broadcast media (TV, radio, newspapers) came a new era of marketing-driven candidacies. Candidates became much further removed from the process of attracting voters, and they figured out ways (helped by Madison Avenue ad men) to manipulate the public using those ads. By the 1990s we reached peak crazy with negative ads, innuendo, third party ads, and the elimination of “equal time” rules on broadcast TV that required at least an attempt to level the playing field. Now with social media, we have the most challenging combination of marketing savvy, cheap and automated provisioning of ads, and precise targeting - and even worse accountability. We’ve even heard possibilities that politicians might target ads to non-aligned voters misdirecting them as to voting instructions or locations. So: am I against free speech? No. I’m definitely a believer in it. But am I against delivering political advertisements through certain channels? Yes.

Why should they? People can make up their own minds we don't need to restrict online advertisements. False messages appear in all other forms of advertisement, facebook or twitter is no different.

otterley 7y ago

Because the potential for societal harm is arguably greater when politicians manipulate the population through falsehoods than it is by purchasing a good or service based on false advertising. And consumers have direct recourse to the law (i.e., damages) for fraud, whereas no such recourse is available to the public until re-election if they elect a politician based on falsehoods.

reroute1 7y ago
But how is this different than political ads on the radio or tv or a billboard? Sounds like you are against political advertisements of any kind. I don't disagree there could be damage done by misinformation, but I don't think that's a compelling reason to ban political ads. I still think people should look at the ads and decide for themselves what is true.
- otterley 7y ago
  This is a tricky question. Traditionally, communication with the public was mainly two-way; the public could directly question candidates and hold them accountable there if the candidate lied. I’m very much for traditional free speech here as there is direct accountability. With the rise of broadcast media (TV, radio, newspapers) came a new era of marketing-driven candidacies. Candidates became much further removed from the process of attracting voters, and they figured out ways (helped by Madison Avenue ad men) to manipulate the public using those ads. By the 1990s we reached peak crazy with negative ads, innuendo, third party ads, and the elimination of “equal time” rules on broadcast TV that required at least an attempt to level the playing field. Now with social media, we have the most challenging combination of marketing savvy, cheap and automated provisioning of ads, and precise targeting - and even worse accountability. We’ve even heard possibilities that politicians might target ads to non-aligned voters misdirecting them as to voting instructions or locations. So: am I against free speech? No. I’m definitely a believer in it. But am I against delivering political advertisements through certain channels? Yes.