4 ms·

What defines a political ad? For example are prolife ads political, even if they mention no laws or politics? What about ads that do not mention politics but

by yters 7y ago

What defines a political ad? For example are prolife ads political, even if they mention no laws or politics? What about ads that do not mention politics but are targeted to influence policy? Seems like an ambiguous category except for outright promoting particular candidates and laws.

enraged_camel 7y ago
>>What defines a political as? It's like porn: hard to define precisely, but you know it when you see it.
nicoburns 7y ago
It's not that hard. The UK (and I believe most of Europe) has heavily regulated political advertising. Politicians can't advertise on billboards here, and TV slots are strictly regulated (and time-limited). I'm not entirely sure what criteria are used, but it seems to work reasonably well.
- dabeeeenster 7y ago
  The entire problem in the UK is that digital ads are almost completely unregulated (or regulated so pathetically as to be unregulated). If facebook follow this, that would be a massive step in the right direction.
- pjc50 7y ago
  .. but not on the internet, which produced the current disaster.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    Indeed, and newspapers are arguably problematic too. But I think it demonstrates that regulation can be done without the definition of what it covers being too controversial.
- ben509 7y ago
  That doesn't mean they're doing it fairly. It just means that people have accepted that certain voices are silenced.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    Go on...?
  - xkjkls 7y ago
    It's much easier to adjudicate what is and isn't political than what is and isn't honest.
StevenRayOrr 7y ago
Lots of democracies have legal definitions for what counts as political advertising. Obviously Twitter doesn't have to use those definitions, but there are fairly clear guidelines in a number of jurisdictions. And it doesn't have to be a situation where they set rules for life: taking a firm apolitical stance on advertising likely requires reassessing the rules over time. But it is doable. What will be really interesting is whether Twitter tries to work with governments or whether they unilaterally come to their own rules. There be dragons on both fronts.
danso 7y ago
It's been defined here: https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-content/political-campaigning-advertising-policy-FAQs.html https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted... edit: This is a better link, as it defines the more general term of "political content", which covers both campaigns and issue advocacy: https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-content/US-political-content.html https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted...
exergy 7y ago
This level of pedantry drives me up the wall. Not everything needs to be invented from first principles. Profile ads are banned, yes, because they involve teh candidates. Policy ads are banned because they again involve politics. We can start anywhere! Let's say 'nothing from any entity that receives money from a political party'. Or 'anything mentioning election candidates'. Or 'anything with certain keywords in it'. What you're not stopping to ask yourself is 'who are the kinds of people that need to advertise about politics'? Yep, exactly the kinds of dickheads you don't want polluting our information streams with their bullshit. Out with all of them!
- ben509 7y ago
  People not thinking things through, which, yes, means working them out from first principles, are why we have so many stupid and broken laws, policies, regulations, etc. > Yep, exactly the kinds of dickheads you don't want polluting our information streams with their bullshit. Out with all of them! I'm sure you'll be shocked and outraged when a story lands in a few months because someone you like is protesting this policy.
  - exergy 7y ago
    And you're going to tell me a bunch of anons on HN are bout to invent it from first principles?! While 'we' (I'm not American) might have plenty of stupid laws, we also have some very good ones. We've gotten there by taking necessarily-flawed first steps. I have no doubt Twitter will overlook something. But I'm glad they're doing it anyway, and we will get somewhere better in steps. It's better than navel gazing about "What's a law anyway?" Also, granted, GP didn't explicitly state that he's against the law, but this kind of smug, condescending slippery slope argument keeps getting brought up all over HN, hence my over the top reaction. So many thread seem to devolve into this kind of pointless "Yeah but define <> first" at the hands of Rationalists™ and are worse for it. They get nowhere and it makes for infuriating reading.
- hailwren 7y ago
  It's not pedantry at all. Look at F1's battle with cigarette advertising for a concrete example. Certainly, explicit advertising is easy to stop, but there are many ways of advertising things surreptitiously. A great example of this is Ferrari's evolution to avoid the F1 cigarette ban. They started with the word Marlboro on the side of their car, then they moved to a barcode that resembled a pack of cigarettes, and now they are partnered with a front company called Mission Winnow (google it, it's really interesting) that is widely believed to be subliminal advertising for Marlboro.

by yters 7y ago

enraged_camel 7y ago

>>What defines a political as? It's like porn: hard to define precisely, but you know it when you see it.

nicoburns 7y ago

It's not that hard. The UK (and I believe most of Europe) has heavily regulated political advertising. Politicians can't advertise on billboards here, and TV slots are strictly regulated (and time-limited). I'm not entirely sure what criteria are used, but it seems to work reasonably well.

dabeeeenster 7y ago
The entire problem in the UK is that digital ads are almost completely unregulated (or regulated so pathetically as to be unregulated). If facebook follow this, that would be a massive step in the right direction.
pjc50 7y ago
.. but not on the internet, which produced the current disaster.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  Indeed, and newspapers are arguably problematic too. But I think it demonstrates that regulation can be done without the definition of what it covers being too controversial.
ben509 7y ago
That doesn't mean they're doing it fairly. It just means that people have accepted that certain voices are silenced.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  Go on...?
- xkjkls 7y ago
  It's much easier to adjudicate what is and isn't political than what is and isn't honest.

StevenRayOrr 7y ago

Lots of democracies have legal definitions for what counts as political advertising. Obviously Twitter doesn't have to use those definitions, but there are fairly clear guidelines in a number of jurisdictions. And it doesn't have to be a situation where they set rules for life: taking a firm apolitical stance on advertising likely requires reassessing the rules over time. But it is doable. What will be really interesting is whether Twitter tries to work with governments or whether they unilaterally come to their own rules. There be dragons on both fronts.

danso 7y ago

It's been defined here: https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-content/political-campaigning-advertising-policy-FAQs.html https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted... edit: This is a better link, as it defines the more general term of "political content", which covers both campaigns and issue advocacy: https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-content/US-political-content.html https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted...

exergy 7y ago

This level of pedantry drives me up the wall. Not everything needs to be invented from first principles. Profile ads are banned, yes, because they involve teh candidates. Policy ads are banned because they again involve politics. We can start anywhere! Let's say 'nothing from any entity that receives money from a political party'. Or 'anything mentioning election candidates'. Or 'anything with certain keywords in it'. What you're not stopping to ask yourself is 'who are the kinds of people that need to advertise about politics'? Yep, exactly the kinds of dickheads you don't want polluting our information streams with their bullshit. Out with all of them!

ben509 7y ago
People not thinking things through, which, yes, means working them out from first principles, are why we have so many stupid and broken laws, policies, regulations, etc. > Yep, exactly the kinds of dickheads you don't want polluting our information streams with their bullshit. Out with all of them! I'm sure you'll be shocked and outraged when a story lands in a few months because someone you like is protesting this policy.
- exergy 7y ago
  And you're going to tell me a bunch of anons on HN are bout to invent it from first principles?! While 'we' (I'm not American) might have plenty of stupid laws, we also have some very good ones. We've gotten there by taking necessarily-flawed first steps. I have no doubt Twitter will overlook something. But I'm glad they're doing it anyway, and we will get somewhere better in steps. It's better than navel gazing about "What's a law anyway?" Also, granted, GP didn't explicitly state that he's against the law, but this kind of smug, condescending slippery slope argument keeps getting brought up all over HN, hence my over the top reaction. So many thread seem to devolve into this kind of pointless "Yeah but define <> first" at the hands of Rationalists™ and are worse for it. They get nowhere and it makes for infuriating reading.
hailwren 7y ago
It's not pedantry at all. Look at F1's battle with cigarette advertising for a concrete example. Certainly, explicit advertising is easy to stop, but there are many ways of advertising things surreptitiously. A great example of this is Ferrari's evolution to avoid the F1 cigarette ban. They started with the word Marlboro on the side of their car, then they moved to a barcode that resembled a pack of cigarettes, and now they are partnered with a front company called Mission Winnow (google it, it's really interesting) that is widely believed to be subliminal advertising for Marlboro.