4 ms·

> blames ... regulation ... political ads transparency rules Blame is a fun word to use. Poor Meta lawyers, need to do some work before accepting money to spre

> blames ... regulation ... political ads transparency rules Blame is a fun word to use. Poor Meta lawyers, need to do some work before accepting money to spread propaganda.

victorbjorklund 1y ago
It is not just propaganda. Its also normal political parties that try to reach out to voters to inform them of their politics.
- prasadjoglekar 1y ago
  Bingo; and one side's legitimate outreach appears to the other side to be blatant propaganda. Paid or unpaid. That's the normal nature of democracy; it's a contact sport. It's better if people see all messages with proper attribution rather than an intermediary deciding what's allowed and what is not. Incidentally, in the US at least, the old fashioned TV networks are require to offer all political candidates the same, lowest, media rates. PACs and outside money pay market rates.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > It's better if people see all messages with proper attribution We’re talking about targeted ads on social media.
  - barbazoo 1y ago
    No one sees the same political ads. Everyone sees a customized version of whatever lie they want to tell you. Get that shit out of the shadows and out in the public where everyone can see who says what. They shouldn’t be whispering what they want in everyone’s ears.
    - iamflimflam1 1y ago
      This is the problem. When political messages are out in the open where everyone can see and challenge them it’s healthy. When it’s whispers tailored to individuals playing on their hopes and fears…
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        Paid political are a problem no matter what, because one shouldn't need half a billion dollar in ad budget before starting a campaign otherwise you end up in an oligarchy real quick.
  - Barrin92 1y ago
    >Paid or unpaid. That's the normal nature of democracy; It isn't in Europe. Most European countries have limits on how much can be spend on political campaigning and when campaigning takes place, and the difference between the smallest and largest parties is within the same order of magnitude, this is so because if one can simply buy an election this has nothing to do with democracy, an equal competition of ideas unrelated to one's financial resources. Democracy isn't a contact sport, it's not even a sport, it's intentional deliberation between ordinary people at an appropriate place and time. Turning politics into 24/7 live TV bread and circus entertainment is exactly what's destroying it.
- MITSardine 1y ago
  An important issue is the lack of transparency in campaigning expenses, which are capped in several countries. This is the principle that underpins the Sarkozy-Kadhafi affair (illegal presidential campaign funding) or the Brexit Cambridge Analytica affair (though that goes beyond that).
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    ... or the German "Grüner Mist" scandal campaign in Germany in front of the 2021 federal elections [1]. [1] https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/gruener-mist/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/gruener-mist/
- s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  > It is not just propaganda. Its also normal political parties that try to reach out to voters to inform them of their politics. I wonder how I would be able to spot the difference in practice?
  - yifanl 1y ago
    It's propaganda if you disagree, and normal if you agree.
- windward 1y ago
  Which definition of propaganda are you using that doesn't include this?
  - slightwinder 1y ago
    The common definition used these days is including a manipulative character. Just neutrally delivering information is not seen as manipulative. Though it's of course disputable which case something is.
- pjc50 1y ago
  In the UK this is regulated spend, except the rules weren't updated for social media and all sorts of dark money adverts started appearing. The UK system gives both a minimum and a cap. Parties are entitled to a TV slot and I believe each candidate gets a free constituency mailshot as well. Beyond that the amount of money that can be spent is supposed to be capped.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bitshiftfaced 1y ago
It looks like it's more about the technical limits that create uncertainty about how this could be enforced. From Google's article on it, > For example, the TTPA defines political advertising so broadly that it could cover ads related to an extremely wide range of issues that would be difficult to reliably identify at scale. There is also a lack of reliable local election data permitting consistent and accurate identification of all ads related to any local, regional or national election across any of 27 EU Member States. And key technical guidance may not be finalized until just months before the regulation comes into effect. - https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/political-advertising-in-eu/ https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/political...

> blames ... regulation ... political ads transparency rules Blame is a fun word to use. Poor Meta lawyers, need to do some work before accepting money to spread propaganda.

victorbjorklund 1y ago

It is not just propaganda. Its also normal political parties that try to reach out to voters to inform them of their politics.

prasadjoglekar 1y ago
Bingo; and one side's legitimate outreach appears to the other side to be blatant propaganda. Paid or unpaid. That's the normal nature of democracy; it's a contact sport. It's better if people see all messages with proper attribution rather than an intermediary deciding what's allowed and what is not. Incidentally, in the US at least, the old fashioned TV networks are require to offer all political candidates the same, lowest, media rates. PACs and outside money pay market rates.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > It's better if people see all messages with proper attribution We’re talking about targeted ads on social media.
- barbazoo 1y ago
  No one sees the same political ads. Everyone sees a customized version of whatever lie they want to tell you. Get that shit out of the shadows and out in the public where everyone can see who says what. They shouldn’t be whispering what they want in everyone’s ears.
  - iamflimflam1 1y ago
    This is the problem. When political messages are out in the open where everyone can see and challenge them it’s healthy. When it’s whispers tailored to individuals playing on their hopes and fears…
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      Paid political are a problem no matter what, because one shouldn't need half a billion dollar in ad budget before starting a campaign otherwise you end up in an oligarchy real quick.
- Barrin92 1y ago
  >Paid or unpaid. That's the normal nature of democracy; It isn't in Europe. Most European countries have limits on how much can be spend on political campaigning and when campaigning takes place, and the difference between the smallest and largest parties is within the same order of magnitude, this is so because if one can simply buy an election this has nothing to do with democracy, an equal competition of ideas unrelated to one's financial resources. Democracy isn't a contact sport, it's not even a sport, it's intentional deliberation between ordinary people at an appropriate place and time. Turning politics into 24/7 live TV bread and circus entertainment is exactly what's destroying it.
MITSardine 1y ago
An important issue is the lack of transparency in campaigning expenses, which are capped in several countries. This is the principle that underpins the Sarkozy-Kadhafi affair (illegal presidential campaign funding) or the Brexit Cambridge Analytica affair (though that goes beyond that).
- mschuster91 1y ago
  ... or the German "Grüner Mist" scandal campaign in Germany in front of the 2021 federal elections [1]. [1] https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/gruener-mist/ https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/gruener-mist/
s1mplicissimus 1y ago
> It is not just propaganda. Its also normal political parties that try to reach out to voters to inform them of their politics. I wonder how I would be able to spot the difference in practice?
- yifanl 1y ago
  It's propaganda if you disagree, and normal if you agree.
windward 1y ago
Which definition of propaganda are you using that doesn't include this?
- slightwinder 1y ago
  The common definition used these days is including a manipulative character. Just neutrally delivering information is not seen as manipulative. Though it's of course disputable which case something is.
pjc50 1y ago
In the UK this is regulated spend, except the rules weren't updated for social media and all sorts of dark money adverts started appearing. The UK system gives both a minimum and a cap. Parties are entitled to a TV slot and I believe each candidate gets a free constituency mailshot as well. Beyond that the amount of money that can be spent is supposed to be capped.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

bitshiftfaced 1y ago

It looks like it's more about the technical limits that create uncertainty about how this could be enforced. From Google's article on it, > For example, the TTPA defines political advertising so broadly that it could cover ads related to an extremely wide range of issues that would be difficult to reliably identify at scale. There is also a lack of reliable local election data permitting consistent and accurate identification of all ads related to any local, regional or national election across any of 27 EU Member States. And key technical guidance may not be finalized until just months before the regulation comes into effect. - https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/political-advertising-in-eu/ https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/political...