4 ms·
You're arguing a point nobody is defending. Obviously it costs money to speak loudly. The question is whether political speech can withstand the age of overwhel
by sjwright 7y ago
You're arguing a point nobody is defending. Obviously it costs money to speak loudly. The question is whether political speech can withstand the age of overwhelming scale, extreme anonymity, weaponised psychology and machine learning.
This is a problem far greater than literally anything that could be broadcast in a radio spot. And for now, the photocopiers and push pollers still exist no matter what happens with Facebook.
- ben509 7y ago> The question is whether political speech can withstand the age of overwhelming scale, extreme anonymity, weaponised psychology and machine learning. Except no one has proposed banning bots, machine learning, or shutting down anonymous actors. Those are all boogeymen. Any paid ad can be required to be transparent to whatever degree we want to impose on the advertiser. That's why, honestly phrased, this question would be, "will my side continue to stay in power if the other side is allowed to get their message out?"
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sjwright 7y agoTo be clear, my objection isn't to all online advertising but specifically to Zuckerberg defending Facebook's current policy with an appeal to free speech. It's not for Facebook to protect your rights here. I don't think any Government should force Facebook's hand; rather they should seek to protect their social license and act independently in their own best long-term interests—as Jack Dorsey recently did for Twitter.