Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over election

Re:Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over ... by anigbrowl on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @06:09PM (#24713362)

I don't buy that argument, which just rewards whoever has the most money to throw at the advertising market (Bloomberg's signal failure in this regard doesn't invalidate the general problem). I like the clearly labeled and non-sensationalistic statements in voter information booklets, myself.

I am of course speaking in general terms about future elections rather than making drastic adjustments in the middle of this one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over ... by marcell on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @06:42PM (#24713670)

If you ban advertisements on Facebook, you end up favoring people with pre-existing set of followers. Typically this will be an incumbent, or perhaps celebrity candidates.

Moreover, FB banning political ads doesn't end the advantage of having more money. It just channels that money somewhere else (TV ads, hiring door-to-door campaigners).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over ... by srtjstjsj on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @08:31PM (#24714428)

How can you say that banning FB ads similtaneous muzzles free speech (in your other comment) and also has no quantitative impact on speech?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook widens ban on political ads as alarm rises over ... by marcell on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:42PM (#24715105)

It certainly muzzles speech. It is likely to lessen the advantage of money in politics, but does not eliminate it entirely.

I don’t believe eliminating the influence of money from politics is a desirable or achievable goal. If you do think it is desirable and achievable, then a ban on FB ads makes sense, but you should also presumably advocate for a ban on TV ads, newspaper ads, paid campaign events, paid campaign staff, and so on.

[ Parent | on HN ]