4 ms·

> one could imagine a hack of defining political ads as "anything that would need to be reported to the FEC as an expenditure." That misses a whole bunch of po

> one could imagine a hack of defining political ads as "anything that would need to be reported to the FEC as an expenditure." That misses a whole bunch of political advertising. Most of it, I'd wager.

briandear 7y ago
A sympathetic news outlet is often treading on the edge of political advertising as well. Some TV station airing a favorable or unfavorable documentary on a candidate during election season when executives of those stations have publicly supported (or not supported) a candidate or party seems no different than a PAC buying an ad on that same station.
- wbl 7y ago
  Imagine if we applied this standard to a story of significant presidential malfeasance in October. Something so terrible no one would ever vote for the person. Should we?
criddell 7y ago
You have to start somewhere.
- nyczomg 7y ago
  While I agree with you, the most vocal of Twitter users likely won’t. Some will be furious if NRA ads are allowed, and others furious if ACLU ads are allowed. And for some reason those are the people society has decided to listen to.
- ianamartin 7y ago
  No. You actually don't have to start somewhere. Starting somewhere bad without a plan is actively bad. Here's the thing, people. FB and Twitter are pretty much garbage. That's fine, and we all mostly agree about that. Here's the worst part of social media in general: it's uniting the absolute shittiest of the Republicans with the absolute shittiest of the Democrats and encouraging them both to get together and form a government agency that defines "truth" and then forces private entities to enforce that truth. There is literally nothing Twitter or Facebook or any other social media website could do that would be this actually bad.
  - pengstrom 7y ago
    While I can imagine what you mean by "shittiest Republicans", could you give me examples of the "shittiest Democrats"?
    - fastball 7y ago
      You don't think there are better and worse Democrats?
  - criddell 7y ago
    It's real hard to find a reason to be upset with a blanket ban on political ads on Twitter. You can still say what you want to say, but Twitter isn't going to accept money to help you promote your message. Good for them.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  1. No you don't. 2. Regulations can lend credibility so a small ineffective "start" has a cost to it.
Townley 7y ago
Independent political action committees (both PACs and Super PACs) need to report their spending to the FEC, tied to the candidate their independent expenditure is in favor of/support. That covers most political spending on the national level. Political spending for state offices (which dont have to report to the FEC) is a whole other story.

briandear 7y ago

A sympathetic news outlet is often treading on the edge of political advertising as well. Some TV station airing a favorable or unfavorable documentary on a candidate during election season when executives of those stations have publicly supported (or not supported) a candidate or party seems no different than a PAC buying an ad on that same station.

wbl 7y ago
Imagine if we applied this standard to a story of significant presidential malfeasance in October. Something so terrible no one would ever vote for the person. Should we?

criddell 7y ago

You have to start somewhere.

nyczomg 7y ago
While I agree with you, the most vocal of Twitter users likely won’t. Some will be furious if NRA ads are allowed, and others furious if ACLU ads are allowed. And for some reason those are the people society has decided to listen to.
ianamartin 7y ago
No. You actually don't have to start somewhere. Starting somewhere bad without a plan is actively bad. Here's the thing, people. FB and Twitter are pretty much garbage. That's fine, and we all mostly agree about that. Here's the worst part of social media in general: it's uniting the absolute shittiest of the Republicans with the absolute shittiest of the Democrats and encouraging them both to get together and form a government agency that defines "truth" and then forces private entities to enforce that truth. There is literally nothing Twitter or Facebook or any other social media website could do that would be this actually bad.
- pengstrom 7y ago
  While I can imagine what you mean by "shittiest Republicans", could you give me examples of the "shittiest Democrats"?
  - fastball 7y ago
    You don't think there are better and worse Democrats?
- criddell 7y ago
  It's real hard to find a reason to be upset with a blanket ban on political ads on Twitter. You can still say what you want to say, but Twitter isn't going to accept money to help you promote your message. Good for them.
austhrow743 7y ago
1. No you don't. 2. Regulations can lend credibility so a small ineffective "start" has a cost to it.

Townley 7y ago

Independent political action committees (both PACs and Super PACs) need to report their spending to the FEC, tied to the candidate their independent expenditure is in favor of/support. That covers most political spending on the national level. Political spending for state offices (which dont have to report to the FEC) is a whole other story.