4 ms·

Banning them would just further extend the isolation/echo chambers created by social media. If you have a political message, it makes sense to force you to tai

Banning them would just further extend the isolation/echo chambers created by social media. If you have a political message, it makes sense to force you to tailor that message on very broad terms. Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking. This is not intended to be an opinion on false statements in political advertising.

jmcqk6 7y ago
> Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking. I believe this is 100% true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. Look at the anger that appears on this site when certain topics are brought up. So people have a hard time dealing with ideas they disagree with, but I doubt that forced interaction with those ideas will improve the situation. We can see empirically that the most common reaction is to double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. That's the current situation. Would banning political ads make this problem worse? I think I can see the logic here - people will only seek out what they agree with. But it's not like political ads are the only way that they might be forced to see something they disagree with. The only way to do that these days would be to be completely off grid somewhere and never to see anyone else. It's also the case that political ads probably provide the worse kind of perspective of views you disagree with. The solution to the problem is to find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking. A lot of magical things can happen when people are honestly committed to finding the truth, instead of protecting what they think the truth is.
- WaitWaitWha 7y ago
  > Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. So, unfortunately, the vast majority of people no longer have the skills to handle this. > ... double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. > ... find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking Yes. I think at least in western society (and I start to see this in Asia too) the self-importance crept in, replacing self-reliance. How did we get here, and how do we "break out"?
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > How did we get here Everything about modern American culture; a nation of throwaway everything. Throwaway food, throwaway tools, throwaway friends, throwaway jobs. > and how do we "break out"? I dunno but maybe listen to and work to solve the things people complain about? Income inequality, global warming, healthcare including mental health, education, penal system, politics
    - mc32 7y ago
      All good causes but I think it’s tangential. People who are unaffected by all that haven’t “broken out”.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    > I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. Propaganda is not a new thing and the reason it was and is widely used is because it works. "But it would not work on smart people like me, but only on millenials or ...". Hint: If everybody considers themselves smarter than average...
  - testuser66 7y ago
    > I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. I am not so sure that we changed so rapidly. It would also make sense that this is not new, and it has just become more apparent in the last few decades, as people have been increasingly communicating with with more other people than ever before. I think the vast majority of people never had the reason/opportunity to acquire critical thinking skills. It has been discussed by philosophers hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, so I think it's safe to assume it's not new. But regardless, I believe the real issue here is that we are not doing much to teach people to think critically.
  - brycesbeard 7y ago
    What makes you think this is different? I think this process is baked into the structure of our brains and is part of the inherently biased way our brains operate.
  - 7y ago
Barrin92 7y ago
>Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking hearing one or two things you disagree with is part of life, hearing 100 things you disagree with a quarter of which are paid for by super PACs or in rubles isn't, that's a recipe for losing your mind. 'echo chamber' should become the unword of the year or something because apparently the free speech mantra has now turned into a license to shove opinions into other people's faces, a good portion of which aren't even authentic.
cujo 7y ago
> Banning them would just further extend the isolation/echo chambers created by social media. I'm not sure this is true. I know I don't see ads from all sides. In my experience the targeted ads just reinforce the echo chamber.
TomMckenny 7y ago
Paid adverting artificiality maintains and promotes ideas backed by money rather than having ideas become widespread solely based on validity. If we believe in the "market place of ideas" where validity and accuracy are the sole determiners of success then none should have artificial support. So all ads should be banned. If an idea fails in this market place, then it is reasonable to assume it is a bad idea. Leveraging it is just as bad when done by Soviet approved posters or Exxon paid for ads. The echo chamber is an example where paid ads will actually _worsen_ the situation: Ads are aimed at target audiences driving them into more extremes by seeing exaggerated or false statement they would not have seen if there were no ads. Also, those echo chambers backed by moneyed interests will thrive and expand while those not money backed will fade. So instead of at least having some hope of uneasy balance between two extremes, you get head long plunge into just one of them.
- kansface 7y ago
  > If we believe in the "market place of ideas" where validity and accuracy are the sole determiners of success then none should have artificial support. The "market place of ideas" makes no mention of the speed, likelihood of transmission, or intended audience. The best candidate with the best message still needs to get the message out in a timely fashion (before the election and to the core constituency!). The best product at the best price doesn't matter if the business runs out of money before it can drum up sales... not to mention, real world concerns like collective action problems. I'd argue the market place of ideas is only the best idea in comparison to the rest.

jmcqk6 7y ago

> Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking. I believe this is 100% true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. Look at the anger that appears on this site when certain topics are brought up. So people have a hard time dealing with ideas they disagree with, but I doubt that forced interaction with those ideas will improve the situation. We can see empirically that the most common reaction is to double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. That's the current situation. Would banning political ads make this problem worse? I think I can see the logic here - people will only seek out what they agree with. But it's not like political ads are the only way that they might be forced to see something they disagree with. The only way to do that these days would be to be completely off grid somewhere and never to see anyone else. It's also the case that political ads probably provide the worse kind of perspective of views you disagree with. The solution to the problem is to find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking. A lot of magical things can happen when people are honestly committed to finding the truth, instead of protecting what they think the truth is.

WaitWaitWha 7y ago
> Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the skills to handle this. I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. So, unfortunately, the vast majority of people no longer have the skills to handle this. > ... double down on your own ideas, get defensive, and generally react in a very self-centered and egotistical manner. > ... find a way to get people to break out of their ego-based thinking Yes. I think at least in western society (and I start to see this in Asia too) the self-importance crept in, replacing self-reliance. How did we get here, and how do we "break out"?
- inetknght 7y ago
  > How did we get here Everything about modern American culture; a nation of throwaway everything. Throwaway food, throwaway tools, throwaway friends, throwaway jobs. > and how do we "break out"? I dunno but maybe listen to and work to solve the things people complain about? Income inequality, global warming, healthcare including mental health, education, penal system, politics
  - mc32 7y ago
    All good causes but I think it’s tangential. People who are unaffected by all that haven’t “broken out”.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. Propaganda is not a new thing and the reason it was and is widely used is because it works. "But it would not work on smart people like me, but only on millenials or ...". Hint: If everybody considers themselves smarter than average...
- testuser66 7y ago
  > I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades. I am not so sure that we changed so rapidly. It would also make sense that this is not new, and it has just become more apparent in the last few decades, as people have been increasingly communicating with with more other people than ever before. I think the vast majority of people never had the reason/opportunity to acquire critical thinking skills. It has been discussed by philosophers hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, so I think it's safe to assume it's not new. But regardless, I believe the real issue here is that we are not doing much to teach people to think critically.
- brycesbeard 7y ago
  What makes you think this is different? I think this process is baked into the structure of our brains and is part of the inherently biased way our brains operate.
- 7y ago

Barrin92 7y ago

>Hearing something you might disagree with is part of life and very important to critical thinking hearing one or two things you disagree with is part of life, hearing 100 things you disagree with a quarter of which are paid for by super PACs or in rubles isn't, that's a recipe for losing your mind. 'echo chamber' should become the unword of the year or something because apparently the free speech mantra has now turned into a license to shove opinions into other people's faces, a good portion of which aren't even authentic.

cujo 7y ago

> Banning them would just further extend the isolation/echo chambers created by social media. I'm not sure this is true. I know I don't see ads from all sides. In my experience the targeted ads just reinforce the echo chamber.

TomMckenny 7y ago

Paid adverting artificiality maintains and promotes ideas backed by money rather than having ideas become widespread solely based on validity. If we believe in the "market place of ideas" where validity and accuracy are the sole determiners of success then none should have artificial support. So all ads should be banned. If an idea fails in this market place, then it is reasonable to assume it is a bad idea. Leveraging it is just as bad when done by Soviet approved posters or Exxon paid for ads. The echo chamber is an example where paid ads will actually _worsen_ the situation: Ads are aimed at target audiences driving them into more extremes by seeing exaggerated or false statement they would not have seen if there were no ads. Also, those echo chambers backed by moneyed interests will thrive and expand while those not money backed will fade. So instead of at least having some hope of uneasy balance between two extremes, you get head long plunge into just one of them.

kansface 7y ago
> If we believe in the "market place of ideas" where validity and accuracy are the sole determiners of success then none should have artificial support. The "market place of ideas" makes no mention of the speed, likelihood of transmission, or intended audience. The best candidate with the best message still needs to get the message out in a timely fashion (before the election and to the core constituency!). The best product at the best price doesn't matter if the business runs out of money before it can drum up sales... not to mention, real world concerns like collective action problems. I'd argue the market place of ideas is only the best idea in comparison to the rest.