6 ms·
Political advertising just makes democracy look like a total joke. If you can buy votes by shoving ads in peoples’ faces that’s not a democracy, that’s an oliga
by cedws 2y ago
Political advertising just makes democracy look like a total joke. If you can buy votes by shoving ads in peoples’ faces that’s not a democracy, that’s an oligarchy.
- readyplayernull 2y agoCircenses et panem
- Loughla 2y agoI'm confused how that applies to political ads.
- Dilettante_ 2y agoThere is a perspective from which all politics is just entertainment with audience participation, while The Powers That Be control the things that actually matter. (I'm not saying I endorse this view, I'm just trying to explain) t. Kooky conspiracy theory collector
- unclad5968 2y agoWell anyone can buy ads so it's not really an oligarchy. What alternative would you propose for candidates to get they're name out?
- Biganon 2y agoEqual time on national television, by law. Like they do in France for example.
- thrance 2y agoHonestly it doesn't work that well. Far-rights channels will push left-wing candidates to graveyard slots, or put them against 3 trained "interviewers", etc. Maybe it's still better than in the US? It's far from perfect.
- Mordisquitos 2y agoIn Spain at least, radio and TV time slots for political ads are assigned by the Electoral Commission in a session which can be attended by representatives of each candidacy.
- addaon 2y agoSo replace oligopoly with gerontocracy? Who consumes national television?
- Mordisquitos 2y agoThen enforce equal slots per online platform and forbid targeting by demographic cohort.
- mh- 2y agoI'm genuinely curious how this works. What constitutes a platform? Is TikTok a platform? Reddit? HN?
- anigbrowl 2y agoWhy don't you make a proposal for what you think is the best approach?
- unclad5968 2y agoFortunately our government can't force private entities to sponsor specific political candidates, due to our constitutional right to freedom of speech.
- unclad5968 2y agoAs in state sponsored television? No one is watching CSPAN to learn anything about candidates.
- digdugdirk 2y agoAh yes, I'm extremely glad that both myself and Charles Koch have the equal right to buy ads. I see no problems that could ever occur because we're equally legally allowed to spend unlimited money on political advertising. Now... How many ads will 5 bucks buy? I'm pretty deeply in debt, but I could probably skip a meal in order to fully exercise my political freedom.
- sweeter 2y agoanyone can buy ads but who buys the majority of ads and ads with the greatest overall impact and impression? That is very obviously skewed. Campaigns directly have limitations on these things, PACs however, do not. and to your question there, one example is to look at Japan. They give candidates an allotted minimum amount of time on TV for free. A candidate gets platformed purely by running. Not only that but we already do grass roots calling/texting/door-knocking campaigns... it is all definitely possible, but unlikely given that the current organization of elections heavily favors the entrenched two party system and the structures that back them (corporations, PACs, private interests, party structures etc...) When our entire system requires billions to run and win an election, we are guaranteeing ourselves that we will continue to live in an Oligarchy.
- AftHurrahWinch 2y ago> and to your question there, one example is to look at Japan. They give candidates an allotted minimum amount of time on TV for free. A candidate gets platformed purely by running. I would be willing to try it in one of our laboratories-of-democracy, but my expectation is that a lot of people would run just for the free opportunity to self-promote. "Hi my name is Ron Popeil and I'm running for city council. I firmly believe that every homeowner deserves, nay, needs a Ronco food dehydrator!"
- School-Cotton 2y agoI don't know about Japan but in France at least there is some minimum threshold to prevent totally unserious random people from running. For example when I lived in France during the 2007 presidential election you needed 500 elected officials (mayors etc.) to vouch that you are a serious candidate. This threshold meant that there were 12 official candidates, unlike the hundreds in US elections, but those 12 were treated equally.
- gosub100 2y agoHow about advertising anything other than a product or service is illegal? No more campaign ads, period. You want to know more about a candidate? Go research her yourself!
- gosub100 2y agoYet when another country does it? "You're meddling in the election!". Mhmm, okay.
- hfdgvvff 2y agoYeah, freedom of speech is a joke.
- dotancohen 2y agoThe concept of freedom of speech does not imply a free platform to spread your speech.
- leereeves 2y agoI think the movie The Insider expressed it well: "The press is free, for anyone that owns one." Apparently that comes from an older expression dating back at least to a 1960 quote in The New Yorker: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
- pawelmurias 2y agoThe alternative to buying ads is buying newspapers and other media outlets.
- evantbyrne 2y agoWell there is no way to ban political messaging in-practice, so we have to regulate it. Also, imo, making education accessible to the masses is important for combating the effectiveness of straight-up misinformation. Right now a good chunk of the population doesn't even seem to understand why they believe things generally, so there's plenty room to improve.
- primitivesuave 2y agoPolitical advertising emerged within a decade of the birth of the republic. Abraham Lincoln famously had his face plastered everywhere, and his campaign monikers like "Honest Abe" are still in use today. The real push toward oligarchy, in my opinion, is the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs FEC. The only available remedy at this point is for the American electorate to stop relying on political ads and make a decision on policy alignment alone (like the Founding Fathers did) - this is a totally unrealistic goal in today's polarized environment.
- outside1234 2y agoThis. Something like 5 people are almost entirely funding Trump's slump (hard to call this mess a campaign) towards the White House and for sure they are going to want pay back. This is what oligarchy looks like.
- fakedang 2y ago5 people? Last time I was on X, nearly every Silicon Valley/tech billionaire was crooning from the rooftops for Trump. You could argue it's the native X bias, but these were all the famous billionaires and multimillionaires who are top names in the SV space. All rooting for a Trump win, perhaps anticipating a quick Vance presidency.
- FirmwareBurner 2y agoWhich is ironic since in 2016 everyone on SV was holding back tears of sadness over Trump getting elected. Oh how the turntables.
- outside1234 2y agoI do believe that something like 70% of SV can't stand Trump. You can see that in the insane amount of money Kamala has raised from SV (which probably even dwarfs Trump's XX person oligarch haul). It is largely the sociopaths at the very very top that are Trump donors.
- tgv 2y agoBezos simply told one of the leading newspapers what to do. Musk buys votes. Oligarchy is about to become reality, and it's powered by useful idiots.
- sweeter 2y agoits been reality...
- leereeves 2y agoMusk pays people to sign a petition, which is legal.
- reaperducer 2y agoSo legal that he stopped after being warned by the feds.
- leereeves 2y agoWho says he stopped? I can't find that in the news, and the offer is still up at: https://petition.theamericapac.org/ https://petition.theamericapac.org/ Even the Biden DOJ only warned him that it "might be illegal". They're stretching the law, trying to apply a law against paying people to register to vote, but Elon will pay people who are already registered so that's quite a stretch.
- datavirtue 2y agoWidely reported today.
- rqtwteye 2y agoGermany doesn't have negative ads criticizing opponents (at least it didn't have them when I lived there). This makes them refreshingly boring. I would guess at least 90% of the US ads are basically "the other guy is bad. Be afraid" without much content. Getting rid of the negative ads would help a lot.
- AftHurrahWinch 2y agoYou might find this interesting! "The Impact of Negative Political Advertisement on Voter Behaviour in Germany – an Experiment" https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f8324712-c2c5-dfd1-9495-d829cbe6c9bf&groupId=252038 https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f8324712... "Negative campaigning has been a feature of German political campaigns from the very beginning of the Federal Republic... the central idea of this paper is to examine the considerable difference between negative campaigning in Germany compared with that in the US." It seems like you're correct that German political ads are almost never US-style 'attack ads' because among Germans, "negative campaigning in Germany is much more risky for the attacker than the impact it may have on the attacked party"
- datavirtue 2y agoSounds like their system isn't in the later stages of cancer like the US.
- NekkoDroid 2y agoI think part of the reason why attack style ads don't work is because you usually need to choose some "villain", which just isn't feasable with more than 2 parties since voters will still have other options than you. Well, unless you vilify every party except your own but that kinda makes your party look crazy. The closest I can think of is somewhat vilifying the extreme ends of the political spectrum since most parties can agree on that (assuming you have more than like 5 parties).
- 0x457 2y agoEvery since election cycle started I've been bombarded by two kinds of text messages (local election): - Don't vote for that guy he is a pedo - Don't listen to this, he isn't a pedo, and also endorsed by local police department
- imiric 2y agoPolitical advertising is just the tip of the corruption iceberg. When lobbying and gerrymandering is legal, can you really claim you're living in a democracy?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> When lobbying and gerrymandering is legal Have you ever given money to the EFF? They're lobbyists. Call your represenatative? That's lobbying. Lobbying, i.e. constituents talking to electeds, is fundamental to democracy.
- rurp 2y agoA huge industrial corporation spending millions on lobbyists in order to make it easier to dump pollutants into the environment without consequence, increasing their profits at the expense of local populations, is also a form of lobbying. I would bet that amoral corporate lobbying accounts for far more activity than good mission driven orgs like the EFF.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> huge industrial corporation spending millions on lobbyists in order to make it easier to dump pollutants into the environment without consequence, increasing their profits at the expense of local populations, is also a form of lobbying Yes. You're describing a policy disagreement between a polluter and everyone else. Pick any political system and you'll have the same divide. (Again, lobbying involves hiring someone to present the case to an elected. It's categorically distinct from giving to a PAC or campaign.) > would bet that amoral corporate lobbying accounts for far more activity than good mission driven orgs like the EFF I mean sure, for a given value of "good." Social policy lobbying tends to vastly outstrip commercial lobbying, in part because the latter is more focussed.
- analog31 2y agoGerrymandering isn't legal. The Constitution says that the states shall have a republican form of government. The founders intended this to mean an elective republic. If the government chooses its own electors, then it's not a republic by any wild stretch of the imagination.
- datavirtue 2y agoI tend to agree. I was thinking last night that all elections should be write-in only. You want to vote for someone to fill an office, you have to write their name. This would change the entire system because you wouldn't be able to vote party in ten seconds flat. The propaganda and parties and grift are so cemented in that making party-line voting difficult seems like a logical first step. Ranked choice wouldn't hurt either.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]