4 ms·

YouTube creators are going to be upset by this, political ads in election years have a CPM of upwards of $5. It makes up a lot of their income.

by xena 2y ago

anonzzzies 2y ago
Sure, but feeding impressionable people garbage which then gets them to vote squarely against their own interests is worse than creators making a bit less.
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Did you forget a "/s" or is that your genuine belief / political stance?
    - ReptileMan 2y ago
      That is the fun part - you have to decide yourself.
      - skyyler 2y ago
        I don’t think this is the right website for that sort of rhetoric. Do you have any sincere beliefs that you’d like to earnestly discuss with other people with curiosity?
        ReptileMan 2y ago
        A particle or a wave. Choose one. Cannot be both. It's travesty against nature. Is a belief that universal franchise is stupid, but since we are playing that stupid game we should enjoy it's stupid prizes and not cry disinformation every time the voters have the audacity to vote against the preferences of the pseudo intellectual elite that controversial?
        surfpel 2y ago
        The rhetoric is indeed the only difference. The same level of insanity, coded differently, makes up a good chunk of non-technical HN.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    Some phds are also impressionable; some of them are even religious, so then I think we should just not vote at all and decide randomly. Will it make much difference? /s -- why is this a thing now?
  - thinkingtoilet 2y ago
    Acknowledging the deliberate rampant misinformation campaigns doesn't make you an elitist.
    - ReptileMan 2y ago
      But claiming that people vote against their interests and the assumption that you know better than them what their interests are makes you one.
      - thinkingtoilet 2y ago
        People do vote against their interests. Full stop. We have agreed there is misinformation. Who is doing it and why? Is it people not in power who have no resources manipulating people in power? Or is it people in power who have the resources manipulating people not in power? The answer is obviously the latter. And if it's people in power doing it, they are doing it for their own good. They are not doing it benevolently.
        tivert 2y ago
        > People do vote against their interests. Full stop. If you're not talking about the normal compromises every voter needs to make between competing priorities, then I think you should own your position and advocate that you yourself be given the power to exercise those voters votes on their behalf, since you claim to know what their interests are better than they do.
        StackRanker3000 2y ago
        So do you really think there are no people who have ever voted against their own interests because they were misled, or even lied to? That doesn’t mean that they should be disenfranchised, but perhaps it’s worth looking into how those people can be better informed, and thus enabled to vote for options that actually align with the outcomes they desire?
        2y ago
  - surfpel 2y ago
    That's ridiculous. We also need minimum asset thresholds for at least 3 generations. What good is a PhD in the hands of someone without a pedigree.
  - 6510 2y ago
    Designing a voting system that requires an informed objective voter is hard but not impossible. It would be fun to run a test system in parallel. Try different thing in different locations with each election. (results discarded) Say, if you want a person to go places and do several things. Surely if you don't pay them for the work you don't get to complaint about quality? Voting for issues as well or in stead of candidates seems needed. We now have a process to hire an employee. Letting the new hire (temp) figure out how to is pretty silly. They should know what we want. (and get fired if they refuse) Adjusting salary to performance (by popular vote) also seems good. Lots of bad ideas we can try without doing much harm. edit: I forgot, as developers we should attempt to solve the puzzle in code. Voting on things is not new terrain but there remains lots to explore.
    - ReptileMan 2y ago
      It is incompatible with universal franchise because some people jusy don't want to be that kind of viter. And if we are not doing universal franchise let's just go full starship troopers.
      - 6510 2y ago
        The fun of democracy is that some people will just have to suck it up. Not everyone needs to approve of elections by the proverbial battle royal to the death. I wrote this software I call subjective sort. The algo is this: Everyone gets to chose from just 2 options but they are chosen randomly. So you would get a ballot with Jill Stein and Afroman on it. We give you some time to read/view some about their election program. You pick one, they get +1 the other -1. If there are enough participants this bubbles the list from best to worse. By comparison well informed choices. The demo sorts countries by population. I don't even know where some of them are but it works. https://subjective-sort.go-here.nl https://subjective-sort.go-here.nl enjoy
- azangru 2y ago
  Like the sibling commenter, I don't get it. If people aren't trusted to express their will, however ill-informed, fickle and capricious, then what was the point of giving them the vote in the first place? And if someone puts a filter on the garbage that reaches impressionable people, then, being so impressionable, won't they be influenced by whoever controls the filter?
  - miningape 2y ago
    Yeah it seems like just another misguided attempt at fixing some issue by the EU. The principal is nice, but the effects and implementation is garbage.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > what was the point of giving them the vote in the first place? To provide tools that counter pressures toward tyranny. > If people aren't trusted to express their will, however ill-informed, fickle and capricious, then what was the point of giving them the vote in the first place? The phrasing here suggests some principle that outweighs societal good. Informing voters in good faith helps them wield their voting tools skillfully. Informing voters in other ways yields other outcomes.
    - azangru 2y ago
      > The phrasing here suggests some principle that outweighs societal good. Yes. What is the instrument for measuring societal good? And what is the mechanism for acting upon those measurements? My naive understanding is that in a society that purports to be democratic, societal good is expressed through votes (people vote for things they deem to be good, or for people who promise to bring those things about), and the enactment of those measurements is done through the same mechanism. > Informing voters in good faith helps them wield their voting tools skillfully. Informing voters in other ways yields other outcomes. Yes. Now we need a mechanism that establishes the goodness of faith of the informer. And if the past five or so years have taught me anything it is that barely anyone who plays professional-league politics speaks in good faith.
  - hackernewds 2y ago
- kobalsky 2y ago
  I think it has more to do with "we should remove the power from this foreign company to have a say in who wins our elections".
- tivert 2y ago
  > Sure, but feeding impressionable people garbage which then gets them to vote squarely against their own interests is worse than creators making a bit less. If you think people are voting "squarely against their own interests," then you probably don't understand their interests. While no candidate/party is ever a perfect fit, and everyone needs to make at least some compromises, exactly what compromises an individual voter makes is their completely valid choice. And honestly, lectures about how XYZ represents the voter's interest and they must vote for that candidate otherwise they're somehow "doing it wrong" is itself a class of "feeding impressionable people garbage which then gets them to vote squarely against their own interests."
  - tzs 2y ago
    Yes, usually you have to vote against some of your own interests because no candidate lines up perfectly with your interests. When people talk about voters voting against their own interests I don't think they usually mean voters who know what each candidate's policies would do for their issues and vote for the candidate who will give them the best overall outcome given that all of the candidates would go against some of their interests. I think they are usually talking about the voters who don't actually know what a candidate's policies would do for their issues because they have been bombarded with misleading or outright lying ads from other candidates or from PACs or other organizations. For example in a US Senate race here a couple of years ago I saw a lot of ads from the non-incumbent all focusing on problems of the largest city in the state. The thing is none of these problems had anything to do with the incumbent Senator, nor were they problems that the challenger would be able to do anything about if they won. If the challenger wanted to actually address those problems she should have been running for mayor or city council. I've met several people who voted for that challenger because they wanted those city issues addressed. They knew she should be bad for other issues they cared about. So they thought they were compromising by giving up those other issues to get a better result on the city issues they cared about. But since the challenger would not have been able to do anything about those issues but would be able to do harm for the issues they cared about they ended up voting for a candidate that was not better than the incumbent on any issue they cared about and was worse on several.
hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
Thoughts and prayers.

YouTube creators are going to be upset by this, political ads in election years have a CPM of upwards of $5. It makes up a lot of their income.

by xena 2y ago

YouTube creators are going to be upset by this, political ads in election years have a CPM of upwards of $5. It makes up a lot of their income.

anonzzzies 2y ago

Sure, but feeding impressionable people garbage which then gets them to vote squarely against their own interests is worse than creators making a bit less.

ReptileMan 2y ago
[flagged]
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Did you forget a "/s" or is that your genuine belief / political stance?
  - ReptileMan 2y ago
    That is the fun part - you have to decide yourself.
    - skyyler 2y ago
      I don’t think this is the right website for that sort of rhetoric. Do you have any sincere beliefs that you’d like to earnestly discuss with other people with curiosity?
      - ReptileMan 2y ago
        A particle or a wave. Choose one. Cannot be both. It's travesty against nature. Is a belief that universal franchise is stupid, but since we are playing that stupid game we should enjoy it's stupid prizes and not cry disinformation every time the voters have the audacity to vote against the preferences of the pseudo intellectual elite that controversial?
      - surfpel 2y ago
        The rhetoric is indeed the only difference. The same level of insanity, coded differently, makes up a good chunk of non-technical HN.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  Some phds are also impressionable; some of them are even religious, so then I think we should just not vote at all and decide randomly. Will it make much difference? /s -- why is this a thing now?
- thinkingtoilet 2y ago
  Acknowledging the deliberate rampant misinformation campaigns doesn't make you an elitist.
  - ReptileMan 2y ago
    But claiming that people vote against their interests and the assumption that you know better than them what their interests are makes you one.
    - thinkingtoilet 2y ago
      People do vote against their interests. Full stop. We have agreed there is misinformation. Who is doing it and why? Is it people not in power who have no resources manipulating people in power? Or is it people in power who have the resources manipulating people not in power? The answer is obviously the latter. And if it's people in power doing it, they are doing it for their own good. They are not doing it benevolently.
      - tivert 2y ago
        > People do vote against their interests. Full stop. If you're not talking about the normal compromises every voter needs to make between competing priorities, then I think you should own your position and advocate that you yourself be given the power to exercise those voters votes on their behalf, since you claim to know what their interests are better than they do.
        StackRanker3000 2y ago
        So do you really think there are no people who have ever voted against their own interests because they were misled, or even lied to? That doesn’t mean that they should be disenfranchised, but perhaps it’s worth looking into how those people can be better informed, and thus enabled to vote for options that actually align with the outcomes they desire?
        2y ago
- surfpel 2y ago
  That's ridiculous. We also need minimum asset thresholds for at least 3 generations. What good is a PhD in the hands of someone without a pedigree.
- 6510 2y ago
  Designing a voting system that requires an informed objective voter is hard but not impossible. It would be fun to run a test system in parallel. Try different thing in different locations with each election. (results discarded) Say, if you want a person to go places and do several things. Surely if you don't pay them for the work you don't get to complaint about quality? Voting for issues as well or in stead of candidates seems needed. We now have a process to hire an employee. Letting the new hire (temp) figure out how to is pretty silly. They should know what we want. (and get fired if they refuse) Adjusting salary to performance (by popular vote) also seems good. Lots of bad ideas we can try without doing much harm. edit: I forgot, as developers we should attempt to solve the puzzle in code. Voting on things is not new terrain but there remains lots to explore.
  - ReptileMan 2y ago
    It is incompatible with universal franchise because some people jusy don't want to be that kind of viter. And if we are not doing universal franchise let's just go full starship troopers.
    - 6510 2y ago
      The fun of democracy is that some people will just have to suck it up. Not everyone needs to approve of elections by the proverbial battle royal to the death. I wrote this software I call subjective sort. The algo is this: Everyone gets to chose from just 2 options but they are chosen randomly. So you would get a ballot with Jill Stein and Afroman on it. We give you some time to read/view some about their election program. You pick one, they get +1 the other -1. If there are enough participants this bubbles the list from best to worse. By comparison well informed choices. The demo sorts countries by population. I don't even know where some of them are but it works. https://subjective-sort.go-here.nl https://subjective-sort.go-here.nl enjoy
azangru 2y ago
Like the sibling commenter, I don't get it. If people aren't trusted to express their will, however ill-informed, fickle and capricious, then what was the point of giving them the vote in the first place? And if someone puts a filter on the garbage that reaches impressionable people, then, being so impressionable, won't they be influenced by whoever controls the filter?
- miningape 2y ago
  Yeah it seems like just another misguided attempt at fixing some issue by the EU. The principal is nice, but the effects and implementation is garbage.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > what was the point of giving them the vote in the first place? To provide tools that counter pressures toward tyranny. > If people aren't trusted to express their will, however ill-informed, fickle and capricious, then what was the point of giving them the vote in the first place? The phrasing here suggests some principle that outweighs societal good. Informing voters in good faith helps them wield their voting tools skillfully. Informing voters in other ways yields other outcomes.
  - azangru 2y ago
    > The phrasing here suggests some principle that outweighs societal good. Yes. What is the instrument for measuring societal good? And what is the mechanism for acting upon those measurements? My naive understanding is that in a society that purports to be democratic, societal good is expressed through votes (people vote for things they deem to be good, or for people who promise to bring those things about), and the enactment of those measurements is done through the same mechanism. > Informing voters in good faith helps them wield their voting tools skillfully. Informing voters in other ways yields other outcomes. Yes. Now we need a mechanism that establishes the goodness of faith of the informer. And if the past five or so years have taught me anything it is that barely anyone who plays professional-league politics speaks in good faith.
- hackernewds 2y ago
kobalsky 2y ago
I think it has more to do with "we should remove the power from this foreign company to have a say in who wins our elections".
tivert 2y ago
> Sure, but feeding impressionable people garbage which then gets them to vote squarely against their own interests is worse than creators making a bit less. If you think people are voting "squarely against their own interests," then you probably don't understand their interests. While no candidate/party is ever a perfect fit, and everyone needs to make at least some compromises, exactly what compromises an individual voter makes is their completely valid choice. And honestly, lectures about how XYZ represents the voter's interest and they must vote for that candidate otherwise they're somehow "doing it wrong" is itself a class of "feeding impressionable people garbage which then gets them to vote squarely against their own interests."
- tzs 2y ago
  Yes, usually you have to vote against some of your own interests because no candidate lines up perfectly with your interests. When people talk about voters voting against their own interests I don't think they usually mean voters who know what each candidate's policies would do for their issues and vote for the candidate who will give them the best overall outcome given that all of the candidates would go against some of their interests. I think they are usually talking about the voters who don't actually know what a candidate's policies would do for their issues because they have been bombarded with misleading or outright lying ads from other candidates or from PACs or other organizations. For example in a US Senate race here a couple of years ago I saw a lot of ads from the non-incumbent all focusing on problems of the largest city in the state. The thing is none of these problems had anything to do with the incumbent Senator, nor were they problems that the challenger would be able to do anything about if they won. If the challenger wanted to actually address those problems she should have been running for mayor or city council. I've met several people who voted for that challenger because they wanted those city issues addressed. They knew she should be bad for other issues they cared about. So they thought they were compromising by giving up those other issues to get a better result on the city issues they cared about. But since the challenger would not have been able to do anything about those issues but would be able to do harm for the issues they cared about they ended up voting for a candidate that was not better than the incumbent on any issue they cared about and was worse on several.

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago

Thoughts and prayers.