7 ms·

I see where they are coming from, but this seems backwards to me. I would like to block all commercial ads, but it seems really important to me that people see

I see where they are coming from, but this seems backwards to me. I would like to block all commercial ads, but it seems really important to me that people see political ads. Granted, the current campaigns in the US are messed up and most ads look like propaganda, but this is a narrow view of what politics can be. Because on the other hand, as a political activist I know how incredibly hard it is to get your message out there. I mean just the hard facts that people might not know about, and our suggested solutions. The internet and social media provides a slightly leveled playing field: Sure a small social movement can never compete against a billion dollar campaign, but this is a pareto-law distribution where they quickly hit diminishing returns. With a few well timed Twitter posts I hand can reach thousands of people. In the pre-digital world, we would have had to print thousands of flyers, tried to get into newspapers etc.. I find it frustrating and damaging to democracy that politics is viewed as something dirty. Politics should be just a domain of problem solving and discussion like programming, home improvement, or cooking - except that everybody should have a say since it affects everybody. Why do we assume everybody in politics has sinister intentions?

rglover 6y ago
Instead of advertisements, then, it seems like they should do something like politics.facebook.com which includes interviews with candidates, breakdowns of candidate platforms and affiliations, and essays by candidates. Ads are just an opportunity to sling more mud and incite rage. I want to see some content that I as a voter can actually inform my opinion with. Fair, even, and well-organized to support voters. Not only that, but it moves people toward having an educated opinion, not getting all gassed up on rage-bait.
vz8 6y ago
Everyone in politics has an agenda. Not everyone in politics is willing to be honest about what that agenda is, and rarely are they held accountable for misinformation used in pursuit of that agenda.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kiba 6y ago
Exactly why I should listen to spin doctor ads?
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
> ... this seems backwards to me. Exactly. I wouldn't mind seeing the actual ads, and getting a first-hand impression on what the candidates are campaigning on. What I do NOT want to see -- which is why I quit Facebook -- are the insane and conspiratorial comments and posts ABOUT the political ads.
vz8 6y ago
@captainmuon I appreciate your sentiment, that viewing politics through a dirty lens is a disservice to democracy. But it is exceptionally difficult to get past the constant battle for share of voice, for power, my tribe vs. your tribe, and down to the brass tacks of problem solving.
Shivetya 6y ago
twitter only reaches the masses because the press relays the tweets. they only do this when it aligns with the story they want to deliver. the vast majority of what passes through twitter is wholly unnoticed by the public if not many of those who use the service. the idea of blocking political based advertisements is pretty much defeated by news stories of which many are political. I am all just for putting a banner, border, or cigarette style label, on all ads with the ability to click anywhere on the border to hide that ad permanently.
dimator 6y ago
> I find it frustrating and damaging to democracy that politics is viewed as something dirty. Politics should be just a domain of problem solving and discussion like programming, home improvement, or cooking - except that everybody should have a say since it affects everybody. Why do we assume everybody in politics has sinister intentions? Because politics, at least at the top levels, has been perverted by lobbying. Your ideal of politics seems to be that of people trying to figure out what choices and compromises need to be made. I'm sure most politicians start out like that, but once they get to office, they see that fundraising for reelection is their #1 goal, full stop.
- abnry 6y ago
  In other words, politics is dirty because the people who play dirty get an advantage, which means only the people who play dirty can stay competitive.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > they see that fundraising for reelection is their #1 goal, full stop. A minor nit pick: I think you're correct that reelection is their #1 goal, but fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically.
  - banads 6y ago
    >fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically. False, see Cambridge Analytica.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > False, see Cambridge Analytica. Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Also, by now Cambridge Analytica’s data has been shown to have been mostly useless at meaningful targeting. Even the New York Times reported that Cambridge Analytica’s impact on the election of Donald Trump as president was overrated. https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/ https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/ From the article: “But a dozen Republican consultants and former Trump campaign aides, along with current and former Cambridge employees, say the company’s ability to exploit personality profiles — “our secret sauce,” Mr. Nix once called it — is exaggerated. Cambridge executives now concede that the company never used psychographics in the Trump campaign. The technology — prominently featured in the firm’s sales materials and in media reports that cast Cambridge as a master of the dark campaign arts — remains unproved, according to former employees and Republicans familiar with the firm’s work.” If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show me what that system is, and I'll try and use it to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
“I would like to block all commercial ads, but it seems really important to me that people see political ads.“ At least in the US political ads are full of negativity, distortion and wrong “facts” so I don’t think they contribute at all to a healthy discussion. I think the country would be better off if it severely limited all political advertising. Won’t happen because of first amendment though.
at_a_remove 6y ago
It's really important to you that other people see what kinds of ads you want them to see. I just have to take a step back from this for a second, because I really, really dislike the concept that other people have decided that I need to be politically educated (and through Facebook ads, no less). Goodness. If you wish to view political ads, or adds for dog hair brushes, by all means, go for it. Do not attempt to force me to do so. If you want to know where the assumption of sinister intentions comes from, read your comment again: you want to decide what I see.
- captainmuon 6y ago
  Maybe this is a cultural difference. I lived in Germany for a long time, and here "political education" ("politische bildung") is something you get in school (e.g. as part of history lessons). This is probably a result of experiencing the decline of democracy, and the rise of fascism. Note this is not about partisanal topics, but about how the separation of powers work, federalism, what happens with your taxes, and even complex things like monetary policy (if you take certain classes). I think the idea to educate the people on general political issues is not too foreign to the US, at least I've seen many PSAs there, which they don't have over here. The idea is not to force anybody to watch anything. My idea would be akin to putting up an informational poster next to an advertizing poster outside. But I've made the experience that in many places you literally can't put a billboard up or run a radio ad if it has political / "world-view-based" content - such as talking about unions, rent control, atheism etc. - whereas it is fine to advertize beer or dog hair brushes or any other product. Conversely, now many platforms actually "force" you to sit through an ad before you get to your content. Tell me, why is it OK if that clip is an ad for some random beauty product, but sinister if it is about the pros or cons of wind energy? What I'm envisioning is not "forcing" anybody to view anything, but for example changing the display algorithms of social media. Let 10 percent or so be an unbiased selection of posts showing different world views. I'm sure the text analysis algorithms could provide that. But yeah, I'd find it beneficial for society if I could get more eyeballs on non-commercial, important-for-society topics. This is the same reason I occasionally hang up a poster in a public place. And I honestly believe it is good if someone passes by my poster and reads it on their way to work. (They are also free to ignore it!)
awb 6y ago
> Why do we assume everybody in politics has sinister intentions? Over the last 30+ years I've seen both parties flip flop on foreign military intervention, gay marriage, states rights, big government, judicial appointments, filibusters, corporate bailouts, government surveillance, militarizing the police, etc. and the list goes on. Both parties have been rhetorically and legislatively on both sides of these issues depending on their position of power. The one thing that is consistent is that the two parties blame each other and the party that's out of power tries to complain and obstruct until they get back in power. So, after a while it is easy to look at millions of donations following in to influence elections and the flip flop of positions and be skeptical of anyone who thinks they can affect change without changing the way government and elections ultimately work.

rglover 6y ago

Instead of advertisements, then, it seems like they should do something like politics.facebook.com which includes interviews with candidates, breakdowns of candidate platforms and affiliations, and essays by candidates. Ads are just an opportunity to sling more mud and incite rage. I want to see some content that I as a voter can actually inform my opinion with. Fair, even, and well-organized to support voters. Not only that, but it moves people toward having an educated opinion, not getting all gassed up on rage-bait.

vz8 6y ago

Everyone in politics has an agenda. Not everyone in politics is willing to be honest about what that agenda is, and rarely are they held accountable for misinformation used in pursuit of that agenda.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kiba 6y ago

Exactly why I should listen to spin doctor ads?

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago

> ... this seems backwards to me. Exactly. I wouldn't mind seeing the actual ads, and getting a first-hand impression on what the candidates are campaigning on. What I do NOT want to see -- which is why I quit Facebook -- are the insane and conspiratorial comments and posts ABOUT the political ads.

vz8 6y ago

@captainmuon I appreciate your sentiment, that viewing politics through a dirty lens is a disservice to democracy. But it is exceptionally difficult to get past the constant battle for share of voice, for power, my tribe vs. your tribe, and down to the brass tacks of problem solving.

Shivetya 6y ago

twitter only reaches the masses because the press relays the tweets. they only do this when it aligns with the story they want to deliver. the vast majority of what passes through twitter is wholly unnoticed by the public if not many of those who use the service. the idea of blocking political based advertisements is pretty much defeated by news stories of which many are political. I am all just for putting a banner, border, or cigarette style label, on all ads with the ability to click anywhere on the border to hide that ad permanently.

dimator 6y ago

> I find it frustrating and damaging to democracy that politics is viewed as something dirty. Politics should be just a domain of problem solving and discussion like programming, home improvement, or cooking - except that everybody should have a say since it affects everybody. Why do we assume everybody in politics has sinister intentions? Because politics, at least at the top levels, has been perverted by lobbying. Your ideal of politics seems to be that of people trying to figure out what choices and compromises need to be made. I'm sure most politicians start out like that, but once they get to office, they see that fundraising for reelection is their #1 goal, full stop.

abnry 6y ago
In other words, politics is dirty because the people who play dirty get an advantage, which means only the people who play dirty can stay competitive.
bhupy 6y ago
> they see that fundraising for reelection is their #1 goal, full stop. A minor nit pick: I think you're correct that reelection is their #1 goal, but fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically.
- banads 6y ago
  >fundraising is only useful if the people that ultimately vote for you feel as though you are meeting their needs. No amount of money can convince a voter to vote for someone with whom they don't align ideologically. False, see Cambridge Analytica.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > False, see Cambridge Analytica. Um, elaborate? You literally cannot buy votes. If I'm a left wing progressive, no amount of money will convince me to vote for a right wing politician (and vice versa). Also, by now Cambridge Analytica’s data has been shown to have been mostly useless at meaningful targeting. Even the New York Times reported that Cambridge Analytica’s impact on the election of Donald Trump as president was overrated. https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/ https://stratechery.com/2018/the-facebook-brand/ From the article: “But a dozen Republican consultants and former Trump campaign aides, along with current and former Cambridge employees, say the company’s ability to exploit personality profiles — “our secret sauce,” Mr. Nix once called it — is exaggerated. Cambridge executives now concede that the company never used psychographics in the Trump campaign. The technology — prominently featured in the firm’s sales materials and in media reports that cast Cambridge as a master of the dark campaign arts — remains unproved, according to former employees and Republicans familiar with the firm’s work.” If you can come up with a system that can convince someone to do something against their will, please show me what that system is, and I'll try and use it to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

“I would like to block all commercial ads, but it seems really important to me that people see political ads.“ At least in the US political ads are full of negativity, distortion and wrong “facts” so I don’t think they contribute at all to a healthy discussion. I think the country would be better off if it severely limited all political advertising. Won’t happen because of first amendment though.

at_a_remove 6y ago

It's really important to you that other people see what kinds of ads you want them to see. I just have to take a step back from this for a second, because I really, really dislike the concept that other people have decided that I need to be politically educated (and through Facebook ads, no less). Goodness. If you wish to view political ads, or adds for dog hair brushes, by all means, go for it. Do not attempt to force me to do so. If you want to know where the assumption of sinister intentions comes from, read your comment again: you want to decide what I see.

captainmuon 6y ago
Maybe this is a cultural difference. I lived in Germany for a long time, and here "political education" ("politische bildung") is something you get in school (e.g. as part of history lessons). This is probably a result of experiencing the decline of democracy, and the rise of fascism. Note this is not about partisanal topics, but about how the separation of powers work, federalism, what happens with your taxes, and even complex things like monetary policy (if you take certain classes). I think the idea to educate the people on general political issues is not too foreign to the US, at least I've seen many PSAs there, which they don't have over here. The idea is not to force anybody to watch anything. My idea would be akin to putting up an informational poster next to an advertizing poster outside. But I've made the experience that in many places you literally can't put a billboard up or run a radio ad if it has political / "world-view-based" content - such as talking about unions, rent control, atheism etc. - whereas it is fine to advertize beer or dog hair brushes or any other product. Conversely, now many platforms actually "force" you to sit through an ad before you get to your content. Tell me, why is it OK if that clip is an ad for some random beauty product, but sinister if it is about the pros or cons of wind energy? What I'm envisioning is not "forcing" anybody to view anything, but for example changing the display algorithms of social media. Let 10 percent or so be an unbiased selection of posts showing different world views. I'm sure the text analysis algorithms could provide that. But yeah, I'd find it beneficial for society if I could get more eyeballs on non-commercial, important-for-society topics. This is the same reason I occasionally hang up a poster in a public place. And I honestly believe it is good if someone passes by my poster and reads it on their way to work. (They are also free to ignore it!)

awb 6y ago

> Why do we assume everybody in politics has sinister intentions? Over the last 30+ years I've seen both parties flip flop on foreign military intervention, gay marriage, states rights, big government, judicial appointments, filibusters, corporate bailouts, government surveillance, militarizing the police, etc. and the list goes on. Both parties have been rhetorically and legislatively on both sides of these issues depending on their position of power. The one thing that is consistent is that the two parties blame each other and the party that's out of power tries to complain and obstruct until they get back in power. So, after a while it is easy to look at millions of donations following in to influence elections and the flip flop of positions and be skeptical of anyone who thinks they can affect change without changing the way government and elections ultimately work.