3 ms·

Indeed this is the way it works but I think you restrict your view by taking social media as some society constant. If there is no way for the public to find th

by v4dok 7y ago

Indeed this is the way it works but I think you restrict your view by taking social media as some society constant. If there is no way for the public to find the information it looks for in a meaningful way in facebook or twitter, it will migrate to something else or push it to change. It might push the platforms to feed people with an equal share of all sides instead of feeding them what the "want" and anyone else has to pay

roenxi 7y ago
Paid advertising to get ideas out has existed for at least as long as we've had newspapers and probably a lot longer. Take this case, for example. URL says it all: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslims-take-out-full-page-newspaper-ad-to-denounce-anti-semitism-against-our-jewish-sisters-and-brothers/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslims-take-out-full-page-n... It sounds nice to say that we are going to keep some communication channels free of political speech. It is an option. But it is possible (I claim: likely) that more communication leads to better political outcomes, so sealing off easy-to-use channels like advertising may not actually help.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > But it is possible (I claim: likely) that more communication leads to better political outcomes Not when that speech is deceptive, and particularly not when people can pay money to a company to ensure that those lies are disseminated as widely as possible.
- kyboren 7y ago
  > But it is possible [...] that more communication leads to better political outcomes I believe this is true and also that this is basically the hypothesis motivating freedom of speech under law. However, I believe that modern digital political advertising is a very different kind of communication than the open, genuine discussion in a free marketplace of ideas that free speech advocates often envision. I think one big problem is information fragmentation taken to the extreme: Each person is now subjected to his or her own individually-targeted propaganda. It is a non-genuine, abusive form of individualized communication that in my opinion tends to erode opportunity for political consensus. In my view, some forms of political advertising are perfectly acceptable. Attending a political debate and arguing well for your candidacy is perfectly acceptable. Enlisting Cambridge Analytica or foreign intelligence services to employ individual psychometric profiles to serve up the most effectively manipulative propaganda is not acceptable. Advertising that is more generally broadcast as opposed to narrowly targeted is perfectly acceptable, and potentially even desirable for political discourse. Advertising that is "too" targeted is potentially corrosive to political discourse. I would love to see proposals on how to draw the line, legislatively, that would address these concerns and also pass strict scrutiny.

by v4dok 7y ago

roenxi 7y ago

Paid advertising to get ideas out has existed for at least as long as we've had newspapers and probably a lot longer. Take this case, for example. URL says it all: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslims-take-out-full-page-newspaper-ad-to-denounce-anti-semitism-against-our-jewish-sisters-and-brothers/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslims-take-out-full-page-n... It sounds nice to say that we are going to keep some communication channels free of political speech. It is an option. But it is possible (I claim: likely) that more communication leads to better political outcomes, so sealing off easy-to-use channels like advertising may not actually help.

JohnFen 7y ago
> But it is possible (I claim: likely) that more communication leads to better political outcomes Not when that speech is deceptive, and particularly not when people can pay money to a company to ensure that those lies are disseminated as widely as possible.
kyboren 7y ago
> But it is possible [...] that more communication leads to better political outcomes I believe this is true and also that this is basically the hypothesis motivating freedom of speech under law. However, I believe that modern digital political advertising is a very different kind of communication than the open, genuine discussion in a free marketplace of ideas that free speech advocates often envision. I think one big problem is information fragmentation taken to the extreme: Each person is now subjected to his or her own individually-targeted propaganda. It is a non-genuine, abusive form of individualized communication that in my opinion tends to erode opportunity for political consensus. In my view, some forms of political advertising are perfectly acceptable. Attending a political debate and arguing well for your candidacy is perfectly acceptable. Enlisting Cambridge Analytica or foreign intelligence services to employ individual psychometric profiles to serve up the most effectively manipulative propaganda is not acceptable. Advertising that is more generally broadcast as opposed to narrowly targeted is perfectly acceptable, and potentially even desirable for political discourse. Advertising that is "too" targeted is potentially corrosive to political discourse. I would love to see proposals on how to draw the line, legislatively, that would address these concerns and also pass strict scrutiny.