5 ms·

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 pa

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
- datashow 7y ago
  I am not suggesting Google needs to do something to balance political powers, which is not Google's responsibility at all. I am simply pointing out the establishment benefits from Google's policy. Between allowing all political ads and halting all political ads, the Singapore establishment would prefer the second.
markstos 7y ago
As a dominant search engine and tech company, Google is also an established "party in power". If we want to re-balance power, we can redirect some outrage from Google to our own choices about the votes we make with our attention and money. We are free to use Duck Duck Go for search, Fastmail for email and so forth. Diversity is good for ecosystems, both natural and digital.
baddox 7y ago
Isn't that a bit like saying that my local grocery store is not politically neutral because by not involving themselves in any political matters whatsoever they are siding with the establishment? Under this definition, wouldn't it effectively be impossible to be politically neutral?
- datashow 7y ago
  Is local grocery stores involving in political matters a social norm in your local community? You can not make up a non-existent reality. A more proper example would be your local newspaper, instead of local grocery store.
  - crematoria 7y ago
    Why does it matter what the norm is? I personally think that we should be generous in this regard, and always treat inaction (e.g. not distributing political ads) as neutral, but I can't explain why.
    - jerf 7y ago
      "but I can't explain why." Well, if nothing else, time is finite. If I simply read a list of every political or plausible political issue that could affect you, I could easily make it detailed enough to take hours. How much have you donated to cure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rare_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rare_diseases ? Don't you care about all of those people? What's your opinion of all the bills currently making their way through your city council? Don't you care enough to make time to find out and have an opinion and take appropriate political action? Every charity in your state or country you're not donating to, well, clearly if you're not for them you're against them. That attitude just doesn't scale. Inaction shouldn't be read as opposition or lack of concern. We all have a list of thousands of concerns and only enough energy to invest in a couple dozen or so, and we've got other constraints on what those can be too if we're not trust-fund babies.
      - baddox 7y ago
faitswulff 7y ago
For more details, this quote from the article: > In an election with the media totally dominated by the state, alternative parties would have no ability to educate and inform the voters of Singapore in the run up to the elections if we are not able to use Google’s advertising platforms... The situation is markedly different from the one in the USA, where the media is not state owned. Therefore banning political advertisement in the USA is politically neutral, whereas banning political advertisement in Singapore obviously aids the incumbent People’s Action Party and is not politically neutral.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Even with a fully private corporate-owned media industry, banning political advertisement can very well not be politically neutral. If the most dominant media (visible above-the-fold by default on phones, computers, TV) predominately favors a specific political party - then the opposing and third parties will lose the ability to have their say heard via ads.
TheFiend7 7y ago
Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through connections etc) than the opposing party? And therefore would imply that the party in power would be able to out-perform in both quantity and quality in ads generally speaking than opposing parties? I'm just trying to understand how it actually helps the party in power by not allowing ads to run. Because I see the opposite situation. Honestly it seems to me both situations the sitting party has the most power, but simply due to the fact that they're the party in power.
- datashow 7y ago
  The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose. Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The political establishment of many decades already have this number close to 100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment. Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the establishment does not need this.
  - TheFiend7 7y ago
    So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example). I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party? Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.
    - datashow 7y ago
      By running ads, the opposition can gain more support, but the establishment can't. How is this hard to understand?
TomMckenny 7y ago
It is not meant to address the clout of the incumbent, who might be of any political party, it is meant to reduce the influence of money in politics; to reduce corruption and de-facto bribery. If it favors incumbents then it is not favoring any particular ideology since the incumbent can be any. If you want to address the staying power of incumbents, arbitrarily favoring opponents who happen to have the most wealth is not the way to do it. It will just consistently favor political movements that money approves of.
- datashow 7y ago
  No. In a rich society like Singapore and America, grassroots can use make a difference with their individual contributions. Money in politics doesn't mean it always favor rich people. Allowing ads is not arbitrarily favoring opponents.

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

datashow 7y ago
I am not suggesting Google needs to do something to balance political powers, which is not Google's responsibility at all. I am simply pointing out the establishment benefits from Google's policy. Between allowing all political ads and halting all political ads, the Singapore establishment would prefer the second.

markstos 7y ago

As a dominant search engine and tech company, Google is also an established "party in power". If we want to re-balance power, we can redirect some outrage from Google to our own choices about the votes we make with our attention and money. We are free to use Duck Duck Go for search, Fastmail for email and so forth. Diversity is good for ecosystems, both natural and digital.

baddox 7y ago

Isn't that a bit like saying that my local grocery store is not politically neutral because by not involving themselves in any political matters whatsoever they are siding with the establishment? Under this definition, wouldn't it effectively be impossible to be politically neutral?

datashow 7y ago
Is local grocery stores involving in political matters a social norm in your local community? You can not make up a non-existent reality. A more proper example would be your local newspaper, instead of local grocery store.
- crematoria 7y ago
  Why does it matter what the norm is? I personally think that we should be generous in this regard, and always treat inaction (e.g. not distributing political ads) as neutral, but I can't explain why.
  - jerf 7y ago
    "but I can't explain why." Well, if nothing else, time is finite. If I simply read a list of every political or plausible political issue that could affect you, I could easily make it detailed enough to take hours. How much have you donated to cure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rare_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rare_diseases ? Don't you care about all of those people? What's your opinion of all the bills currently making their way through your city council? Don't you care enough to make time to find out and have an opinion and take appropriate political action? Every charity in your state or country you're not donating to, well, clearly if you're not for them you're against them. That attitude just doesn't scale. Inaction shouldn't be read as opposition or lack of concern. We all have a list of thousands of concerns and only enough energy to invest in a couple dozen or so, and we've got other constraints on what those can be too if we're not trust-fund babies.
    - baddox 7y ago

faitswulff 7y ago

For more details, this quote from the article: > In an election with the media totally dominated by the state, alternative parties would have no ability to educate and inform the voters of Singapore in the run up to the elections if we are not able to use Google’s advertising platforms... The situation is markedly different from the one in the USA, where the media is not state owned. Therefore banning political advertisement in the USA is politically neutral, whereas banning political advertisement in Singapore obviously aids the incumbent People’s Action Party and is not politically neutral.

drak0n1c 7y ago
Even with a fully private corporate-owned media industry, banning political advertisement can very well not be politically neutral. If the most dominant media (visible above-the-fold by default on phones, computers, TV) predominately favors a specific political party - then the opposing and third parties will lose the ability to have their say heard via ads.

TheFiend7 7y ago

Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through connections etc) than the opposing party? And therefore would imply that the party in power would be able to out-perform in both quantity and quality in ads generally speaking than opposing parties? I'm just trying to understand how it actually helps the party in power by not allowing ads to run. Because I see the opposite situation. Honestly it seems to me both situations the sitting party has the most power, but simply due to the fact that they're the party in power.

datashow 7y ago
The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to lose. Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The political establishment of many decades already have this number close to 100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment. Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the establishment does not need this.
- TheFiend7 7y ago
  So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to 95% support (for the sake of the example). I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party? Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually. Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they only represent >5% of the available political parties.
  - datashow 7y ago
    By running ads, the opposition can gain more support, but the establishment can't. How is this hard to understand?

TomMckenny 7y ago

It is not meant to address the clout of the incumbent, who might be of any political party, it is meant to reduce the influence of money in politics; to reduce corruption and de-facto bribery. If it favors incumbents then it is not favoring any particular ideology since the incumbent can be any. If you want to address the staying power of incumbents, arbitrarily favoring opponents who happen to have the most wealth is not the way to do it. It will just consistently favor political movements that money approves of.

datashow 7y ago
No. In a rich society like Singapore and America, grassroots can use make a difference with their individual contributions. Money in politics doesn't mean it always favor rich people. Allowing ads is not arbitrarily favoring opponents.