8 ms·

Google halts political ads in Singapore as election looms: documents

88 points by doppp 7y ago

BubRoss 7y ago
The party in power only allows political ads on the TV station they control for a few weeks before the election. This makes me think that they are trying to control alternate routes of information as well.
daenz 7y ago
>The office administrating Singapore’s new fake news law, called the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Anyone else get the sense that these new laws and policies get "beta tested" in other countries first?
40acres 7y ago
Generally think political ads on these platforms is an overblown issue, but one that it would be smart for these companies to nip in the bud. Most people still get their news through traditional channels, I genuinely feel that a lot of the ink spilled by media companies on tech is a backlash to the loss of ad revenue. That being said the scrutiny is required.
majos 7y ago
Does anybody have numbers for how much revenue companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter even earn from political ads? At this point it is hard for me to imagine that revenue is worth the public backlash, regardless of my opinion on whether that backlash is justified.
- radicaldreamer 7y ago
  It’s not about revenue, it’s about being indispensable to politicians and using that as leverage to prevent regulatory actions.
  - throwaway1777 7y ago
    Not really, for instance Facebook is constantly arguing that they want to be regulated in the domain of political ads.
- buboard 7y ago
  The total political ad revenue for 2016 was $1.8 billion. It's not that big > is worth the public backlash There will be backlash with or without ads. Twitter will also get a lot of blaming for not allowing small parties to have a voice.
- perch56 7y ago
  Romania recently held presidential elections. Officially all the candidates spent 690.000 euro for online ads. Other countries such as Greece spent ~1 million euro. This article in Romanian details more https://romania.europalibera.org/amp/30285024.html https://romania.europalibera.org/amp/30285024.html
datashow 7y ago
One thing people need to understand is that halting political ads to all political parties is not political neutral, it is siding with the establishment, the party in power.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I think Germany does it right by restricting political ads only to a very limited timeframe. I think negative ads aren’t allowed either. So parties can get their message out but they don’t benefit from having more money and the quality of the ads is not as low as in the US.
- duxup 7y ago
  Is that the case? Are Google ads that influential as far as 'establishment' vs 'not establishment' in Singapore?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- flafla2 7y ago
  Allowing all political ads isn't politically neutral either, the establishment will presumably have far greater resources (in this case, money to pay for ads). Then the only other option is to ban or suppress certain political parties on Google's ad platform to appeal to some notion of "equality". But who gets to decide that? Do we really want Google deciding which political parties get more ad play? I am reminded of Thomas Sowells idea of "Cosmic Justice" which was posted here a few days ago [1]. Giving Google the reins on political advertisement is an impossible game, and the only winning move is not to play. > In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice. [1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html
mc32 7y ago
I’m curious about the outcome of this prelude to the US elections and whether problems will crop up. It seems banning political ads on its properties will have a disproportionate effect on small parties and favor incumbents.
- penagwin 7y ago
  It could have the opposite affect too though, since google ads are essentially a bidding war, so if you have lots of money you could theoretically just out bid all your opponents (then it's down to who has more money).
  - darkwizard42 7y ago
    This is exactly what happens. Since a larger company can just bury a message by having better ad targeting, spend more on the big demos, overload and bid up keywords and generally squeeze any smaller message out.
- duxup 7y ago
  Do small parties benefit more than others with Google ads?
  - mc32 7y ago
    Exposure. It’s like an initial hockey stick graph. Once you’re big you don’t get as big a bang. It helps them get initial traction.
    - duxup 7y ago
      With all the griping about ad effectiveness. I'm not convinced that's the case.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I have been to SG but know nothing of their politics. The skeptic in me wonders if a party that was likely to come to power that Google did or did not agree with if that would change wether and when they decided to ban political ads.
knzhou 7y ago
In these comments, and in the press at large, we have another great display of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It is constantly argued that Facebook, Google, etc. must stop political ads in America, because allowing ads benefits the party currently in power. But now all the comments argue that Google must not stop political ads in Singapore, because forbidding ads benefits the party currently in power. I have not the slightest doubt that the same amount of outrage would occur if Google had taken the exact opposite action: for literally any action you can construct a narrative for why it benefits the "wrong" people. It feels like some people won't be happy until Google is literally appointing the politicians they like.
- flafla2 7y ago
  I mentioned this in another comment, but you've hit the nail on the head. This idea is expanded upon by Thomas Sowell's idea of "Cosmic Justice": > Presumably, the vast ranges of undeserved inequalities found everywhere are the fault of "society" and so the redressing of those inequalities is called social justice, going beyond the traditional justice of presenting each individual with the same rules and standards. However, even those who argue this way often recognize that some undeserved inequalities may arise from cultural differences, family genes, or from historical confluences of events not controlled by anybody or by any given society at any given time. For example, there was no way that Pee Wee Reese was going to hit as many home runs as Mark McGwire, or Shirley Temple run as fast as Jesse Owens. There was no way that Scandinavians or Polynesians were going to know as much about camels as the Bedouins of the Sahara-- and no way that these Bedouins were going to know as much about fishing as the Scandinavians or Polynesians. > In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice. The above is an abbreviation of a speech, which itself is an abbreviation of a book. I highly recommend reading the speech as the ideas are heavily expanded upon: https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html
goodluckchuck 7y ago
In the US we believe in a free exchange of information not merely because censorship is bad and true information should get out, but because the free exchange of even false information improves discourse and makes for a more informed public. By allowing deception, we allow parties to reveal their existence, character, and interests. People are tricked by lies, sure, but people also see through lies. Lies affect reputations and have the effect of somewhat removing bad-actors from the intellectual playing field. By being exposed to fake news, the public comes to think more critically and maintains a healthy level of skepticism. To say "the public should be protected from foreign interference" is to say that the public should be kept ignorant of what other have to say, and that this information should be concealed from voters. It suppresses critical thinking and causing people to believe what they're told - particularly from domestic sources they trust protecting entrenched powers. The US should welcome any information other countries have.
thanatropism 7y ago
Maybe time is of the essence. Someone should split the Twitter/Facebook difference and allow political ads until 90 days prior to the election. Information should spread freely but people should have the time to parse it too. If Boris' Brexit Bus (with misinformation about the consequences of Brexit for the NHS) had been allowed to hang around but banned near polling time, there would be time to fact check it or even think about it calmly.
Pimpus 7y ago
People are forgetting something. We know Google is far left and wishes to impose their leftist agenda on the world at large [0]. All of their shenanigans including censorship of search, censorship on Youtube, and now this, would make this agenda and intent abundantly clear, even if they weren't exposed on tape admitting to it. This particular action may be aimed towards Singapore, but I am 100% confident that this is a test run for a similar action in the United States. [0]: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl...
throwGuardian 7y ago
Can you imagine a Russian search engine having 90%+ market share in the U.S., making decisions on whether or not political ads should be allowed on it's US properties? This is Google, an American company with clear political bent, indulging in election interference in a foreign country. Just defer to local laws Google, you are NOT a neutral third party, and definitely NOT local.
- Craighead 7y ago
  Since when has cyber space been considered sovereign?
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  They are defering to local laws. The laws say you can't advertise unless you conform to these requirements; google hasn't set up there systems to conform to those requirements so they can't publish political ads.

88 points by doppp 7y ago

The party in power only allows political ads on the TV station they control for a few weeks before the election. This makes me think that they are trying to control alternate routes of information as well.

daenz 7y ago

>The office administrating Singapore’s new fake news law, called the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Anyone else get the sense that these new laws and policies get "beta tested" in other countries first?

40acres 7y ago

Generally think political ads on these platforms is an overblown issue, but one that it would be smart for these companies to nip in the bud. Most people still get their news through traditional channels, I genuinely feel that a lot of the ink spilled by media companies on tech is a backlash to the loss of ad revenue. That being said the scrutiny is required.

majos 7y ago

Does anybody have numbers for how much revenue companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter even earn from political ads? At this point it is hard for me to imagine that revenue is worth the public backlash, regardless of my opinion on whether that backlash is justified.

radicaldreamer 7y ago
It’s not about revenue, it’s about being indispensable to politicians and using that as leverage to prevent regulatory actions.
- throwaway1777 7y ago
  Not really, for instance Facebook is constantly arguing that they want to be regulated in the domain of political ads.
buboard 7y ago
The total political ad revenue for 2016 was $1.8 billion. It's not that big > is worth the public backlash There will be backlash with or without ads. Twitter will also get a lot of blaming for not allowing small parties to have a voice.
perch56 7y ago
Romania recently held presidential elections. Officially all the candidates spent 690.000 euro for online ads. Other countries such as Greece spent ~1 million euro. This article in Romanian details more https://romania.europalibera.org/amp/30285024.html https://romania.europalibera.org/amp/30285024.html

datashow 7y ago

One thing people need to understand is that halting political ads to all political parties is not political neutral, it is siding with the establishment, the party in power.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I think Germany does it right by restricting political ads only to a very limited timeframe. I think negative ads aren’t allowed either. So parties can get their message out but they don’t benefit from having more money and the quality of the ads is not as low as in the US.
duxup 7y ago
Is that the case? Are Google ads that influential as far as 'establishment' vs 'not establishment' in Singapore?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
flafla2 7y ago
Allowing all political ads isn't politically neutral either, the establishment will presumably have far greater resources (in this case, money to pay for ads). Then the only other option is to ban or suppress certain political parties on Google's ad platform to appeal to some notion of "equality". But who gets to decide that? Do we really want Google deciding which political parties get more ad play? I am reminded of Thomas Sowells idea of "Cosmic Justice" which was posted here a few days ago [1]. Giving Google the reins on political advertisement is an impossible game, and the only winning move is not to play. > In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice. [1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html

mc32 7y ago

I’m curious about the outcome of this prelude to the US elections and whether problems will crop up. It seems banning political ads on its properties will have a disproportionate effect on small parties and favor incumbents.

penagwin 7y ago
It could have the opposite affect too though, since google ads are essentially a bidding war, so if you have lots of money you could theoretically just out bid all your opponents (then it's down to who has more money).
- darkwizard42 7y ago
  This is exactly what happens. Since a larger company can just bury a message by having better ad targeting, spend more on the big demos, overload and bid up keywords and generally squeeze any smaller message out.
duxup 7y ago
Do small parties benefit more than others with Google ads?
- mc32 7y ago
  Exposure. It’s like an initial hockey stick graph. Once you’re big you don’t get as big a bang. It helps them get initial traction.
  - duxup 7y ago
    With all the griping about ad effectiveness. I'm not convinced that's the case.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

I have been to SG but know nothing of their politics. The skeptic in me wonders if a party that was likely to come to power that Google did or did not agree with if that would change wether and when they decided to ban political ads.

knzhou 7y ago

In these comments, and in the press at large, we have another great display of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It is constantly argued that Facebook, Google, etc. must stop political ads in America, because allowing ads benefits the party currently in power. But now all the comments argue that Google must not stop political ads in Singapore, because forbidding ads benefits the party currently in power. I have not the slightest doubt that the same amount of outrage would occur if Google had taken the exact opposite action: for literally any action you can construct a narrative for why it benefits the "wrong" people. It feels like some people won't be happy until Google is literally appointing the politicians they like.

flafla2 7y ago
I mentioned this in another comment, but you've hit the nail on the head. This idea is expanded upon by Thomas Sowell's idea of "Cosmic Justice": > Presumably, the vast ranges of undeserved inequalities found everywhere are the fault of "society" and so the redressing of those inequalities is called social justice, going beyond the traditional justice of presenting each individual with the same rules and standards. However, even those who argue this way often recognize that some undeserved inequalities may arise from cultural differences, family genes, or from historical confluences of events not controlled by anybody or by any given society at any given time. For example, there was no way that Pee Wee Reese was going to hit as many home runs as Mark McGwire, or Shirley Temple run as fast as Jesse Owens. There was no way that Scandinavians or Polynesians were going to know as much about camels as the Bedouins of the Sahara-- and no way that these Bedouins were going to know as much about fishing as the Scandinavians or Polynesians. > In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice. The above is an abbreviation of a speech, which itself is an abbreviation of a book. I highly recommend reading the speech as the ideas are heavily expanded upon: https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html

goodluckchuck 7y ago

In the US we believe in a free exchange of information not merely because censorship is bad and true information should get out, but because the free exchange of even false information improves discourse and makes for a more informed public. By allowing deception, we allow parties to reveal their existence, character, and interests. People are tricked by lies, sure, but people also see through lies. Lies affect reputations and have the effect of somewhat removing bad-actors from the intellectual playing field. By being exposed to fake news, the public comes to think more critically and maintains a healthy level of skepticism. To say "the public should be protected from foreign interference" is to say that the public should be kept ignorant of what other have to say, and that this information should be concealed from voters. It suppresses critical thinking and causing people to believe what they're told - particularly from domestic sources they trust protecting entrenched powers. The US should welcome any information other countries have.

thanatropism 7y ago

Maybe time is of the essence. Someone should split the Twitter/Facebook difference and allow political ads until 90 days prior to the election. Information should spread freely but people should have the time to parse it too. If Boris' Brexit Bus (with misinformation about the consequences of Brexit for the NHS) had been allowed to hang around but banned near polling time, there would be time to fact check it or even think about it calmly.

Pimpus 7y ago

People are forgetting something. We know Google is far left and wishes to impose their leftist agenda on the world at large [0]. All of their shenanigans including censorship of search, censorship on Youtube, and now this, would make this agenda and intent abundantly clear, even if they weren't exposed on tape admitting to it. This particular action may be aimed towards Singapore, but I am 100% confident that this is a test run for a similar action in the United States. [0]: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl...

throwGuardian 7y ago

Can you imagine a Russian search engine having 90%+ market share in the U.S., making decisions on whether or not political ads should be allowed on it's US properties? This is Google, an American company with clear political bent, indulging in election interference in a foreign country. Just defer to local laws Google, you are NOT a neutral third party, and definitely NOT local.

Craighead 7y ago
Since when has cyber space been considered sovereign?
qtplatypus 7y ago
They are defering to local laws. The laws say you can't advertise unless you conform to these requirements; google hasn't set up there systems to conform to those requirements so they can't publish political ads.