13 ms·
Google, Meta and Microsoft to stop showing political ads in the EU
- tdb7893 11mo agoIgnoring political implications here and just on a personal level I wish political ads were banned. Quite possibly my least favorite type of ad to see and I've never felt meaningfully informed by them (generally quite the opposite).
- fsflover 11mo agoI would go even further: banning all ads, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
- dangus 11mo agoSounds like a good way to trap everyone with incumbent corporations. No quitting your corporate job to start your own business, you’re not allowed to advertise.
- dietr1ch 11mo agoYou are conflating slapping ads in people's faces with making your business listed on the white/yellow/whatever pages and allowing people to find you without being a jerk.
- esafak 11mo agoThat directory for tech would be like ProductHunt. Do you like it?
- JoshTriplett 11mo agoThe yellow pages are ads, that's why for a while it was really hard to stop getting the phone company to stop leaving it as trash on your doorstep.
- dietr1ch 11mo agoBut we don't need paper these days. What I meant is to switch from being shown somewhat relevant ads while you try to do something else, to searching for relevant stuff whenever you truly need it.
- guiambros 11mo agoYellow pages, really? Like, let's ban ads and brig back yellow pages", and everything will be solved? And, if you were not aware, how do you think Yellow Pages made money? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages
- gus_massa 11mo agoNot that I think it's a good idea, but ... You go to Google, type "refrigerator" and you get two buttons * Please show me only adds, sorted by how much they paid to Larry and Sergey * Please show me only somewhat organic results, sorted by relevance or whatever, and discount me $1 to pay for the servers and crawers.
- dietr1ch 11mo agoYeah, but serving that doesn't cost that much and dropping the advertisement platform would drop it further (and let engineers fix search instead of shaving milliseconds from ad bidding)
- dangus 11mo ago1. Yellow pages were paid ads 2. If a “directory” is the only advertising mechanism allowed it benefits the incumbents because incumbents are the only ones who have existing brand recognition. I don’t need a directory to know about Coca-Cola or Google Maps. You would have had to ban advertising at the dawn of time for this to work.
- dietr1ch 11mo ago1. It makes sense that the business are the ones paying to get listed and vetted. We are now starting to need those blue checkmarks for a reason, some verification process is necessary, and then serving costs. 2. Why? You wouldn't search by business name, but by need. What about "nearby bakeries" or "pop soda" only benefits the better known brands? Indexing by name isn't the only way.
- dangus 11mo agoFor #1 I think the idea basically violates the idea of banning advertising. For #2, I think that established brands essentially wouldn’t need to be searched for. In the status quo I can pay to put up a billboard next to McDonald’s and say “I make a better burger two blocks down.” But if I’m not allowed to do that a lot of people will just assume that McDonald’s is the place to go for a fast food burger.
- dietr1ch 11mo ago1. No, it puts people in control of when they query the index instead of spamming everywhere eyesight could possibly stare at. 2. That's fine, you want something new or something you don't know where to get? Query an index. You want the good ol' experience? Go for what you already know well. If you worry about the people who would never discover anything new, then it's like they don't talk to anybody or have no desire of changing anything, but that's their decision.
- dangus 11mo agoWhat if the “good old experience” is Microsoft in the late 1990s with a nearly 100% marketshare? You don’t know anyone who uses another system and you assume that all other options either don’t exist or can’t possibly be as good. There’s almost zero word of mouth and you haven’t bothered to consult a directory since you’re 100% confident that the only operating system in the world is Windows [1] Do you not recognize how this scenario can work to preserve monopolies? How does Apple come back from the brink of bankruptcy without their iconic iMac and iPod marketing campaigns? And how do you flip the switch to making advertising illegal when incumbent companies have already enjoyed the benefit of legal advertising for hundreds of years? We ban advertising, and I start my new soft drink company, but Coca-Cola got to advertise for 100+ years already. The cat has been out of the bag for thousands of years. [1] https://www.overclock.net/threads/teacher-calls-linux-%E2%80%9Cillegal%E2%80%9D-threatens-to-call-cops.424430/ https://www.overclock.net/threads/teacher-calls-linux-%E2%80...
- simion314 11mo agoThere could be an index where you list your product/service, so people can find your stuff when they need it. But yeah will be harder to manipulate people to buy your miracle supplement or other garbage that is 99% of the current ads I see. I do not watch Tv, use ad blockers so after years of not watching TV I watched a bit recently and most ads are supplements/"naturists medicine" and for some reasons on youtube without the ad blocker they always show me the same ad over and over again(it is funny Google is trying to sell me the product from the company I work for, and somehow showing me same ad each day would convince someone to eventually try something they are not interested in)
- thewebguyd 11mo ago> showing me same ad each day would convince someone to eventually try something they are not interested in * not interested in right now. Showing the same ad to the same person (or cohort of people) works. Eventually, someone in the cohort may be interested in that product/service at some point in their lfie and they are more likely to pick a brand they are familiar with. They are now familiar with that brand after having seen it everywhere all over their internet browsing, sometimes for months or years at a time.
- porridgeraisin 11mo agoYeah. Don't want that. Of course it works, but so does drugging people. Doesn't mean it needs to be allowed. When I want it, ill initiate a fresh search and find whatever I find, at that time. Don't want things leeching into my subconscious just because you want it to be your brand that I use later.
- dangus 11mo agoWhat’s your stance on signage on physical brick and mortar businesses? Logos on products? Where should we be drawing this line? And who benefits most from that line being drawn?
- 11mo ago
- thewebguyd 11mo agoThat'd be great. But how would you define what's advertising and what's not? I've built a relatively successful professional photography side hussle without "advertising" as in, I've never paid for an ad on any of the social platforms or google ads. Most of my business comes from word of mouth, or hits on my website. But, is the SEO I do advertising? What about when I share my work to my socials, is that advertising? Post a reel of behind the scenes footage of me photographing a wedding so potential clients can see my process, is that advertising? I do all of those things with the goal to drum up business, but they fall outside of the traditional meaning of the word. Likewise with product placement in films, influencer marketing, etc. How do we even begin to draw the line at what is an advertisement and whats not?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- Certhas 11mo agoWe have successfully banned Cigarette ads. Not saying there aren't things to sort out, and lines to be drawn, but it's by no means impossible.
- jacobgkau 11mo agoWe've successfully banned cigarette ads from TV and radio. We haven't banned them from the wall at gas stations. They're also not banned on the internet, legally. Do you want to ban advertising, or ban TV and radio advertising?
- xnorswap 11mo agoYour jurisdiction might not have, mine has, for almost 30 years now. They're sold under the counter (literally) / behind shutters, in plain packaging. They certainly are not advertised on posters.
- noir_lord 11mo agoIn the UK they are sold behind blank displays and the packaging is generic as well. Sure it’s Unrelated but smoking is now 1 in 8 adults and dropping. You can ban this type of advertising if you enforce it.
- baby 11mo agoIMO a bad idea, ads help with discoverability and is one of the most effective mechanism for growth. This includes for small and big businesses. I think it makes more sense to target what kind of ads should be banned (e.g. politics, alcohol, cigarets, religion, etc.) and what ads format should be banned (e.g. loud ads, ads in the subway, etc.)
- walkabout 11mo ago> what ads format should be banned Practically all of them unless I've asked to receive them. I'd absolutely sign up to receive info about new products from certain industry groups, niche product promoters, some stores, et c.
- baby 11mo agoI get that you're upset at ads in general, because they're on your face all the time, but banning them out right doesn't seem right. I mean this is what keeps a lot of very useful services free.
- renewiltord 11mo agoPlease don't shill someone's blog here. This kind of "native advertising" is not appreciated. If you have a point, make it. Don't just use it as an opportunity to astroturf a blog.
- fsflover 11mo agoI gave a link to an extensive HN discussion, not a blog.
- renewiltord 11mo agoSure you did. And the link at the top of the page was just a coincidental "banner ad" that you had nothing to do with. If you simply wanted to share that content without the link, it's just plain HTML. Trivial to do. It's not ethical for you to be doing this kind of submarine advertising on HN without disclosure. Please just admit what you're doing rather than pretending.
- fsflover 11mo agoLet me disclose that I have no connection whatsoever with the linked blog.
- Dylan16807 11mo agoAre you doing some kind of bit here? It's easier to share HTML than... a link? If this is supposed to be an analogy to how people will argue over what's an ad so a rule is infeasible, it's a bad analogy. If it's literal then you're not making sense.
- cj 11mo ago> Campaigners say the law will cause a harmful loss of information I find this quote from the article amusing. If EU political ads are anything like USA political ads, the objective of the ad is rarely, if ever, to educate the audience. The objective of most political ads is to confuse, disorient, and distort the narrative.
- floxy 11mo ago>distort the narrative Whatever would we do if we didn't have the corporate/billionaire narrative to guide our lives!
- jopsen 11mo agoI don't think the political ads are like in the US. Not at all. Also the scale is no where near. TV2 in Denmark just ran an article saying that the 24 politicians and parties buying the most ads bought a total of 250k ads ahead of this policy coming into effect. Note that same month last year the spend was ~1/3. I know Denmark is small, ~5-6M, but that's doesn't seem like a lot of money.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 11mo agoThe amount of money in US politics and elections in particular is staggering when you think about it. In 15 weeks Kamala Harris' campaign spent $1.5 billion. That's just insane. Especially when you find out that a lot of that spend goes through "media consultancies" and PR firms...run by former DNC staffers. And the same is true for the RNC. The two parties are basically a giant revolving door and network of jobs with access to this enormous slush fund.
- docdeek 11mo agoHere in France the presidential candidates who make it to the second round are limited to spending €22.5 million over the course of the entire campaign (first and second rounds). About half gets reimbursed from public funds, so you 'only' need to raise about €10-12 million. Hard limits on campaign donations (about €4K) mean big money impacts the race less, and limits on advertising means you don't have to spend it on TV ads or direct mail. Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing) is near unfathomable.
- ThatMedicIsASpy 11mo agoThe worst form of physical ads in Germany. A slogan or a face and the party name printed on paper and hung up on the streets everywhere. So wasteful.
- Reason077 11mo agoSounds like a pretty standard election sign/billboard design in any country.
- dylan604 11mo ago> generally quite the opposite Very much this. These ads make me very much not want to vote for the candidate which is the opposite of what they wanted.
- immibis 11mo agoThe advertising industry keeps repeatedly finding that no matter how much you think an ad turned you off a product, you're still more likely to buy that product after seeing the ad, and the more times you see the ad, the more likely you are to buy it. No matter how the ad made you feel.
- austin-cheney 11mo agoYeah, political ads are so toxic but worse its just lazy money. I am really tired of super PACs buying my politicians with this garbage. I would rather my politicians come down to the district here and hold rallies or town halls where they can lie to us in person. Yes, I am fully aware the next problem in all this is how does the politician then notify the district of the place and time of the next meeting. It would be great if congress, as a body, had a mechanism in place to handle this so that it is equally applied for any registered candidate regardless of party affiliation or primary favoritism. Seriously, if politicians want cheap media coverage then they should do something worthy of coverage. There is one politician I can think of right now, far outside my local district, that is on one edge of the political spectrum and simultaneously performing the miracle of picking up tremendous popularity from the opposite edge of the political spectrum. They finally learned to tune their messaging from party political theater to rapidly changing opinions on current events in ways other politicians cannot. I am hearing way more about people like that than the person from my district, who isn't doing anything worth of media attention.
- yieldcrv 11mo agoSuper PACs are the dumbest of dumb money, and I'm surprised this forum isn't solely about extracting money from them They have no shareholders or fudiciary duties, they are formed as non profits 501(c)4's with no purpose except their stated political position (for a policy / candidate, or against a policy / candidate) and this comes with no limitation on what they can own and do with the money and this is all based on the flawed theory that spending equals votes it's the dumbest reality that I thought would have been solved by constitutional amendment after Citizen's United but nope! how are you not taking advantage of this stupidity! the spending has only grown from all sides
- tehjoker 11mo agoCommercial ads are also designed to manipulate you emotionally or otherwise present you with information that induces a desire to buy what you otherwise didn't need.
- MattDaEskimo 11mo agoDepends on your definition of "political ads". If your definition is: an ad that explicitly involves a party/politician, why? It seems like they're going to happen regardless, the difference is the subtly. For example, there's a lot of accounts purposefully pushing ideologies, and focusing on specific events for a political purpose on social media. Arguably, these are much more dangerous than explicit political ads.
- mytailorisrich 11mo agoBanning political ads would completely negate what a democratic free society is.
- alex1138 11mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21407531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21407531
- zb3 11mo agoGood, political ads are total crap, no matter what party they're for.
- t43562 11mo agoExcellent! People with money won't be able to use those platforms to buy votes.
- hulitu 11mo agoBest joke ever. Just like the article.
- morkalork 11mo agoWill this be the same situation as the news ban on Facebook where all the legitimate ads disappear and all that remains are the deceptive propaganda paid for by shell companies?
- NoahZuniga 11mo agoNow you can't select the "This is a political add, extra transparency" button but you might still want to buy ads, so less transparency might be the result.
- mrtksn 11mo agoI don’t know how useful or relevant is this. The problem is actually influencers paid by political actors to push an agenda. it’s hard to detect, but it works like this. Let’s say you want to promote fear of AI, then you just show ads(no association with the topic, it’s just to transfer funds) or do live chat donations on influencers that are into fear mongering against AI. shortly, other start noticing that there is money in this and more and more influencers are doing it.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- troupo 11mo agoThe problem is defining what is political ads. I haven't read the regulation yet (full text here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng) so I'm just speculating. E.g. Russia happily bans organisations that promote AIDS awareness because they a) receive foreign money and b) "work to influence political decisions". Oh, we all know which political ads we don't want. The problem is that sometimes promoting worthwhile causes or just existing may and will end up political
- parasti 11mo agoAs a EU citizen, I don't care? People are not swayed by political ads. They're swayed by influencers who push political agendas covertly.
- sublimefire 11mo agoI would think this is naive to imagine that targeted ads do not have influence when used in large numbers. There is a reason why this market exists. I am happy this law has an effect and potentially opens the doors to other players.
- BoredPositron 11mo agoI think this comes from a us perspective in most of Europe political ads consist of a portrait image of the politician and a slogan that gets penetrated to death. We don't have attack ads here most of the time we don't even have ads that transport a message besides this is Dude A from Party A.
- ripped_britches 11mo agoThen why are they paying for them? They can literally see the exact CPC and CPA / CPM ratios that justify their spending
- Dr_Incelheimer 11mo agoThat's because you are a HN user, which selects for above average intelligence people (yes, even the webdevs). You are not the type of person who sways election results. Ads work. You don't need carefully crafted subliminal messages, you could write "vote for me" everywhere and it would have a noticeable effect on the election results
- decremental 11mo ago[dead]
- lm28469 11mo ago> That's because you are a HN user, which selects for above average intelligence people This forum became a parody of itself
- paganel 11mo ago[flagged]
- sublimefire 11mo agoHow is this bad? I welcome the decision and the outcome. It is beyond crazy what some groups are doing with the misinformation and outright lies on the platforms. Ad companies just want to rake the money with the least effort. They have shown over the years they are not willing to improve the outcomes.
- paganel 11mo ago> How is this bad? I welcome the decision and the outcome. I do not welcome it, as I am on the populists' side. Decisions like this one are effectively putting our political (non-violent, just to make sure on that) action outside the law, so in effect what do you think the next steps from my side of the isle will be? Acquiescence in practically being silenced out by the current powers that be? I think that that will not be the case.
- shevy-java 11mo agoFewer ads is always great. Not everyone wants to be molested by ads. I for instance don't. I think ads should be forbidden.
- mrtesthah 11mo agoThat sounds like a threat of violence.
- paganel 11mo agoThis is violence happening right now from the EU, as in people will risk getting into jail for carrying out normal political activities. Is that clear enough now? Or will globalist-like people continue crying “wolf!” while they’ll continue doing very “are we the baddies?” things?
- ripped_britches 11mo agoI am a big fan of commercial advertising. I think it drives our global economy. However I think political and medical advertising need to be tightly regulated.
- Marsymars 11mo ago> I think it drives our global economy. It does, but in the same way that gambling drives the Macau economy.
- pizzathyme 11mo agoAds get a bad wrap, but no one wants a bad ad. The user wishes they didn't have to see it. The platform wishes they hadn't shown it to you. The advertiser/company wishes they hadn't paid to show it to you. In contrast, a "good" ad is just a recommendation for something you haven't heard of, but you love and are glad you were told about it. There are tons of products and services out there you haven't heard of. People might not believe this, think that if they would really love it, they would have searched for it, found it through organic means, etc. But if that were true, these companies wouldn't be bringing in $100B+ each, and generating $1T+ spend each
- Spivak 11mo agoSo I think we've over-grouped ads into too broad a category to be useful. Brand sponsorships (i.e. The Doritos-Jeep-AT&T Halftime Show) and other 'brand awareness' are clearly bad ads by your own metric, they do nothing to inform. Same with "entertainment ads" which are just 30 second comedy bits attached to a brand. But when people think of ads, radio promos, podcast interruptions, tv commercials, posters in shops, billboards online banner ads, they're almost exclusively this kind of bad ad. And when people talk about banning advertising they're talking about these and likely very little else.
- Marsymars 11mo ago> Ads get a bad wrap, but no one wants a bad ad. This is weirdly tautological. Nobody wants an extra bad version of anything, regardless of whether it has a bad rap or not. Cigarettes get a bad rap, but smokers don't want cigarettes that got damp in transit and cigarette manufacturers and corner stores don't want to provide damp cigarettes to their customers. > In contrast, a "good" ad is just a recommendation for something you haven't heard of, but you love and are glad you were told about it. There are tons of products and services out there you haven't heard of. Are there? Do "good" ads actually exist? I avoid ads as much as possible, but don't find that my life is improved by the instances where I am unavoidably exposed to them, and think it's unlikely that my life would be improved if I deliberately exposed myself to more ads. > People might not believe this, think that if they would really love it, they would have searched for it, found it through organic means, etc. But if that were true, these companies wouldn't be bringing in $100B+ each, and generating $1T+ spend each This is an ironic response given you're responding to a comparison of the advertising industry to the gambling industry; the conclusion that a company is providing a valuable service to society doesn't follow from the premise that the company is making a lot of money.
- shevy-java 11mo agoGood. The fewer ads in general, the better. And these Trump-corporations already have WAY too much influence.
- stronglikedan 11mo agoWere they Biden-corporations just a couple short years ago?
- seydor 11mo agoit's ironic that the european commission and the european parliament are the top 2 spenders on facebook ads in most EU countries. Meta is basically cutting off a major channel that the EU uses to promote itself. https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/ https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/ But the new rules also don't solve anything. Political advertising is not necessarily related to specific elections , which means that over time , either the EU will broaden the definition of political ads to basically outlaw all opinions or all the political advertising shifts from eponymous to anonymous
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- Bengalilol 11mo agoGood. But how about political content that gets served to their users?
- seydor 11mo agowe ban the bad content and keep the good content, easy peasy way to dictatorship
- paxys 11mo ago> “Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates will lose an affordable channel to reach voters, while large, well-followed accounts remain largely unaffected,” Grassroots campaigns are not banned. Organic social media activity is not banned. Smaller parties will be just fine. This will only negatively impact politicians/parties/corporations who think that spending more money entitles them to a louder voice.
- seydor 11mo agoand how does a sole candidate for mayor begin this 'grassroots campaign'. If you seriously start knocking on people's doors, you re most likely to end up dead or in prison in this day and age
- greggsy 11mo agoDon’t be ridiculous. Canvassing is not a dangerous activity.
- Bjartr 11mo agoWhat makes that more true today than, say, 40 years ago?
- seydor 11mo agoonline communication, city densities, very fast movement of people, immigration, inexistence of third spaces, helicopter parenting and so many other things
- baby 11mo agoIt is messed up in the US that a political party basically wins because they spend more money in ads and utilize ads more intelligently. I mean things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/election-musk-pac-michigan-ads-israel-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/election-mus... > A political action committee (Pac) linked to Elon Musk is accused of targeting Jewish and Arab American voters in swing states with dramatically different messages about Kamala Harris’s position on Gaza, a strategy by Trump allies aimed at peeling off Democratic support for the vice-president. > Texts, mailers, social media ads and billboards targeting heavily Arab American areas in metro Detroit paint Harris as a staunch ally of Israel who will continue supplying arms to the country. Meanwhile, residents in metro Detroit or areas of Pennsylvania with higher Jewish populations have been receiving messaging that underscores her alleged support for the Palestinian cause. There seems to be no attempt at making elections fair by providing all candidates with the same funding and the same air time.
- seydor 11mo agoDemocrats outspent Trump in 2020, 2024 and 2016 https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/nx-s1-5173712/2024-election-ad-spending-trump-harris https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/nx-s1-5173712/2024-election-a... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/television-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/...
- baby 11mo agoTwo things: 1. as in the example of my post, you can do extremely dirty ads tactics that are much more effective than plain ads, making your money go a long way 2. these don't count social media bots, especially when financed by external actors
- mrtesthah 11mo agoTrump received the equivalent of two billion dollars in free media coverage in 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... Elon Musk spent $44 billion dollars to buy Twitter and then prioritized right wing pro Trump messaging in 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5156184/elon-musk-trump-election-x-twitter https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5156184/elon-musk-trump...
- nine_zeros 11mo agoWould an American using a VPN into EU also be saved from the garbage toxic political ads? Or are we condemned to forever seeing this garbage?
- lowbloodsugar 11mo agoDon’t want legitimate ads competing with the armies of Russian bots posting propaganda 24/7.
- jama211 11mo agoMate… the ads ARE the propaganda.
- psb 11mo ago> Polish hard-right member of the European Parliament Piotr Müller said the rules are an example of over-regulation gone wild This is almost an endorsement of the rules to me.
- lowbloodsugar 11mo agoHe’s just saying that so you think it’s a bad idea. In fact the far right is supported by armies of Russian propaganda, that these companies are doing nothing to stop.
- lyu07282 11mo agoSome US billionaires/soon trillionaires have already announced their intention to "help" the EU and UK far-right to win elections, to liberate them from democracy I suppose: https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-far-right-germany-england-europe-2008828 https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-far-right-germany-england... Probably a big driving force behind those new rules as well. That's why the far-right frames this as overregulation, it directly impacts them.
- oytis 11mo agoSounds good to me
- ajrouvoet 11mo agoDutch newspaper Trouw also reported that their ad was rejected multiple times by Meta. After inquiry into this they found it was because it was about sustainability and hence considered “a political ad”. (Paywalled) Source: https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-media/advertenties-over-armoede-burgerrechten-en-klimaat-niet-meer-welkom-op-facebook-en-instagram~bff420a8/ https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-media/advertenties-over-armoede...
- jeroenhd 11mo agoUnpaywalled link: https://archive.is/VBqs7 https://archive.is/VBqs7 This reeks of malicious compliance to me.
- otterdude 11mo ago[dead]
- h1fra 11mo agoGood, political advertising is pay to win and should be banned across the world
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoI agree. But the most toxic extreme things get “engagement” so they will be promoted by the algorithm. So does that help?
- k12sosse 11mo agoIn Canada meta won't pay news publishers for aggregating their content, which is law apparently.. so only fake news and divisive shit lives on their platforms
- next_xibalba 11mo ago> pay to win Kamala Harris would like a word.
- johaugum 11mo agoPaying is necessary, but not sufficient, to win. In her case, the campaign started too late. And despite being a household name, her policies were less known.
- lostlogin 11mo agoI looked this up as I doubted it. If it was about money, Trump wouldn’t have had a chance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-vs-harris-fundraising-race-harris-outraised-trump-3-to-1-with-last-pre-election-report/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...
- j45 11mo agoWith a clear, agreed upon exact definition of political between all 3 companies? I wonder if this has to do with Chat Control, or something else?
- samrus 11mo agoThe benefit grabbing attention using ads feels like something that only exists in relative measure. So if everyone is boosting themselves on tour timeline, its kinda like no one is. If none of them boost themselves, then they dont lose out against each other The only thing is that, compared to before, they get less attention relative to content that was always unboosted. Which includes organic unbiased content which is better for the consumer so thats actually a plus But that unboosted content also includes astroturfing which can now become more of a persons timeline If the regulators are motivated to clear up the online content space of bad faith political influence, the next thing they should do is try to curb botting and astroturfing (while respecting freedom)
- TheTaytay 11mo agoThere are an awful lot of people here excited about a world with fewer or no allowed political advertisements. This feels short sighted to me. If I was an evil incumbent dictator, I would immediately outlaw political advertisements and give the people exactly what so many people here seem to be asking for. Then, I would give official government speeches every day talking about how awesome I am. I wouldn’t even have to talk badly about my opponents. You would never hear about them in the first place.
- refulgentis 11mo ago"If I were dictator, I'd ban opponents..." is a nice rejoinder to the strawmen who would defend that. "...just like requiring transparency on political ad purchases." is the part that rings in my head.
- jama211 11mo agoThere’s a difference between banning political ads and political journalistic reporting. A huge difference. You’d still hear about incumbents and opponents, just not from their ads, which is so much better.
- TheTaytay 11mo agoYou are right that there is a difference. I don’t believe we agree on how different they are. I consider political speech to be an extremely common, almost impossible-to-define type of speech. So hard to define that it becomes dangerous to try to eliminate it in certain circumstances. Journalists often work on behalf of organizations, both for-profit and non-profit. Those companies have the freedom (your mileage may vary in your country) to report on whatever they like, and in many cases, say whatever they like. And I can see why journalism seems like the ideal “alternative” to advertising, but it’s also hard to define/limit, without killing it. In your ideal scenario, “journalists” are allowed to interview and write an article about a candidate to get the word out. They can say positive or negative things about that candidate. That’s not “advertising” though. Cool. Imagine candidate A is running on a platform of “increase taxes on apples” an I think we should raise taxes on bananas instead. Which of the following activities are allowed in this political-advertising free country? 1) writing a blog post about my opinion 2) posting on hacker news comments about my opinion 3) submitting a link to Hacker News about my opinion 4) running for office myself 5) accepting donations from other people who agree with me 6) starting an independent magazine called “Fruit tax weekly” 7) paying employees to help with the magazine 8) selling the magazine 9) giving the magazine away 10) standing on a street corner and telling people my opinion 11) paying to rent an auditorium to give a speech 12) putting up a poster about my speech 13) writing a Mac app for my magazine 14) paying for advertising of my Mac app in the App Store 15) paying someone to put up a poster about my speech 16) studying to become a fruit tax journalist 17) writing an article about bananas 18) running a full page ad in a newspaper that just says “I hate bananas” or “bananas are bad for you” 19) write an article in my magazine about candidates that are for or against the Apple/Banana tax 20) have my magazine accept donations 21) link to an article that someone wrote about me 22) paying to advertise my blog 23) paying to advertise the article someone wrote about me 23) paying to advertise the article someone wrote about my opponent —— Some of the answers are probably easy. But it’s easy to imagine exploiting most of those activities to circumvent the “ad” ban. If we ban “political ads”, we don’t just get rid of “those annoying ads I don’t like seeing on TV and the internet, that are hard to define, but can’t we all agree they are annoying?” You put a chilling effect on many forms of speech, even the ones ostensibly allowed. You also chill the ability to speak about the ban itself. And if the answer to the above questions centers on anything that rhymes with “we’d have a government agency/tribunal that determined whether something is political speech or not”, I would argue you’ve created a censorship machine controlled by the people that are currently in power. This becomes especially scary when you replace the apples vs banana tax with something that you consider more concerning and consequential.
- jama211 11mo agoOh thank god