4 ms·

Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth.

newen 7y ago
That's why people build movements, why activism is a thing. Money shortcuts all of that and gives undue voice to people with the most money.
- aluminussoma 7y ago
  Is activism so pure? The activists I see have nice signs and people protesting during business hours when the rest of us are working. Printing good signs costs money. There is big money behind a lot of activists, just better hidden.
  - nicpottier 7y ago
    Maybe at least that's creating some employment opportunities? Especially in an auction model like Facebooks we are spending millions (billions?) in a zero sum game where people bid against each other to no benefit except Facebook's.
- jackinloadup 7y ago
  By that definition people who want to voice their opinions shouldn't pay for any service which would amplify that voice. That could be a sign, megaphone, stage, internet, website, youtube channel (camera). If I'm able to have more signs or youtube channels people will pay more attention to me and thus I'm using an advantage the other party may not have the financial ability to respond to. I think this idea could go further but it seems obvious that money is another unbiased tool to promote your speech. Money doesn't have a political affiliation. People can use money in a biased way just like they can use a camera, tv channel, or sign to have a bias. The medium isn't biased the way it's used is.
  - newen 7y ago
    But you are ignoring the difference in power that people have in this context. Especially in this age, when inequality is so high, it is naive to consider money to be an unbiased tool. Especially when we already live in a massively unequal stage where a few coorporations have access to the most popular websites, magazines, newpapers, tv channels, allowing money into this equation as an unbiased tool will only increase this inequality in the ability to spread a message. I think we as a society should make changes so that money has as little influence as possible. Of course, that battle will never end and there will be pushback from the small minority of people of have the overwhelming amount of wealth in this world, but changes such as banning political ads in twitter is a very good start.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Money is our best proxy for work/effect. Removing money has been tried in places like Russia. People stop working and if they are forced will not try as hard. Money has been part since the beginning. To vote you needed to own property which made sense because land owners paid the government in the form of taxes. Personal income taxes came after the war to pay for the war debts.
      - chillacy 7y ago
        I don't see the parent's post advocating for removing money entirely, rather flattening the curve or reducing the winner-take-all effect. I think most of us would be happy with not a flat curve but a more gentle gradient, instead of a hyper exponential curve. By the way every time there's an unrestrained hyper exponential curve, it leads to civil unrest pretty quickly. A lot of terrible things come in the wake of economic hardship.
    - matz1 7y ago
      I don't think you can eliminate inequality. So you remove money, then it will simply be replaced by something else. Then there will be someone who has more of whatever it is that replaced money, thus you create different kind of inequality.
aggie 7y ago
Why should any individual be given outsize voice in a democracy, if not by amplification from many others?
- whiddershins 7y ago
  Well I think people who put in more effort get more influence on average. Effort can take the form of standing on the street holding a sign, and it takes money to make a sign, and time to stand there. It can take the form of going door to door and talking to people and giving them printed materials. You need the money for the printed materials, and the time to canvass the neighborhood. Same for running for local political office. Same for making a documentary, or a podcast, or a YouTube channel. Same for running a Facebook ad. Communication takes time and money. Getting money also takes time, to earn it, to inherit it, to ask donors or investors for it... There’s no way to have any communication at all without these elements.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Why is outsized voice reserved only for the promotion of consumerist consumption? That's the pnly political view that deserves a microphone?
- wolco 7y ago
  No one is given anything you want a largerr voice join up with others. Those with money can pay someone to tell someone else something. Those with time can tell everyone they meet. That's how a democracy. Some have bigger voices compared to others.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth. Zuck himself, ironically, has helped create that situation by deliberately reducing organic reach to force people to pay to be heard. This is a cynical ploy for money on Zuck's/Facebook's part. If they really cared about free speech, they wouldn't hobble the organic reach of political actors.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  It's possible for both of those things to be true at the same time -- that they should neither deliberately restrict organic reach nor refuse political advertising on the basis of content.
  - philipov 7y ago
    Right, they should refuse all advertising, regardless of content. They have made themselves into the largest public platform and have no business taking bribes. If they want to be a profit-generating business, they should stop being the public forum.

newen 7y ago

That's why people build movements, why activism is a thing. Money shortcuts all of that and gives undue voice to people with the most money.

aluminussoma 7y ago
Is activism so pure? The activists I see have nice signs and people protesting during business hours when the rest of us are working. Printing good signs costs money. There is big money behind a lot of activists, just better hidden.
- nicpottier 7y ago
  Maybe at least that's creating some employment opportunities? Especially in an auction model like Facebooks we are spending millions (billions?) in a zero sum game where people bid against each other to no benefit except Facebook's.
jackinloadup 7y ago
By that definition people who want to voice their opinions shouldn't pay for any service which would amplify that voice. That could be a sign, megaphone, stage, internet, website, youtube channel (camera). If I'm able to have more signs or youtube channels people will pay more attention to me and thus I'm using an advantage the other party may not have the financial ability to respond to. I think this idea could go further but it seems obvious that money is another unbiased tool to promote your speech. Money doesn't have a political affiliation. People can use money in a biased way just like they can use a camera, tv channel, or sign to have a bias. The medium isn't biased the way it's used is.
- newen 7y ago
  But you are ignoring the difference in power that people have in this context. Especially in this age, when inequality is so high, it is naive to consider money to be an unbiased tool. Especially when we already live in a massively unequal stage where a few coorporations have access to the most popular websites, magazines, newpapers, tv channels, allowing money into this equation as an unbiased tool will only increase this inequality in the ability to spread a message. I think we as a society should make changes so that money has as little influence as possible. Of course, that battle will never end and there will be pushback from the small minority of people of have the overwhelming amount of wealth in this world, but changes such as banning political ads in twitter is a very good start.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Money is our best proxy for work/effect. Removing money has been tried in places like Russia. People stop working and if they are forced will not try as hard. Money has been part since the beginning. To vote you needed to own property which made sense because land owners paid the government in the form of taxes. Personal income taxes came after the war to pay for the war debts.
    - chillacy 7y ago
      I don't see the parent's post advocating for removing money entirely, rather flattening the curve or reducing the winner-take-all effect. I think most of us would be happy with not a flat curve but a more gentle gradient, instead of a hyper exponential curve. By the way every time there's an unrestrained hyper exponential curve, it leads to civil unrest pretty quickly. A lot of terrible things come in the wake of economic hardship.
  - matz1 7y ago
    I don't think you can eliminate inequality. So you remove money, then it will simply be replaced by something else. Then there will be someone who has more of whatever it is that replaced money, thus you create different kind of inequality.

aggie 7y ago

Why should any individual be given outsize voice in a democracy, if not by amplification from many others?

whiddershins 7y ago
Well I think people who put in more effort get more influence on average. Effort can take the form of standing on the street holding a sign, and it takes money to make a sign, and time to stand there. It can take the form of going door to door and talking to people and giving them printed materials. You need the money for the printed materials, and the time to canvass the neighborhood. Same for running for local political office. Same for making a documentary, or a podcast, or a YouTube channel. Same for running a Facebook ad. Communication takes time and money. Getting money also takes time, to earn it, to inherit it, to ask donors or investors for it... There’s no way to have any communication at all without these elements.
lonelappde 7y ago
Why is outsized voice reserved only for the promotion of consumerist consumption? That's the pnly political view that deserves a microphone?
wolco 7y ago
No one is given anything you want a largerr voice join up with others. Those with money can pay someone to tell someone else something. Those with time can tell everyone they meet. That's how a democracy. Some have bigger voices compared to others.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> Yes, but ads with no reach effectively means you have no meaningful voice in the public discourse. So it's free speech, but without any teeth. Zuck himself, ironically, has helped create that situation by deliberately reducing organic reach to force people to pay to be heard. This is a cynical ploy for money on Zuck's/Facebook's part. If they really cared about free speech, they wouldn't hobble the organic reach of political actors.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
It's possible for both of those things to be true at the same time -- that they should neither deliberately restrict organic reach nor refuse political advertising on the basis of content.
- philipov 7y ago
  Right, they should refuse all advertising, regardless of content. They have made themselves into the largest public platform and have no business taking bribes. If they want to be a profit-generating business, they should stop being the public forum.