In 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
These are only about direct donations. Most money in politics nowadays is this so-called "dark money". Most billionaires I can think of supported Trump: Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel, Ellison... Lobbies generally favor the Right because they are more easily corrupted (Trump 2x his personal fortune in less than a year of presidency). Right-wing influencers got massive grants from think tanks, Russia and other conservative sources, etc.
> “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.
While I'm sympathetic to the sentiment here, it can be overly simplistic in some common cases. For instance, a newcomer might benefit disproportionately from the first X units of ad spending to "get their name out," relative to an incumbent or someone with a famous name spending the exact same price on the same X units, whose incremental effect might be less.
Alternately, a local candidate might not have funding for traditional media spots but might want to experiment with smaller ad buys, or might appeal to a demographic less likely to see traditional media spots. In all of these cases, this regulation disproportionately helps their opponent.
Of course, the incumbent often has funding for multiple times the ad spend of the newcomer, so the status quo wasn't necessarily a good situation either. Publicly funded campaigns, providing every candidate with an equal amount of money to be used across all types of advertising, could be highly effective here, but only in contexts where this can't be end-run by e.g. PACs in the U.S. post-Citizens United.
and 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
> 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.
Not in Europe, certainly not Denmark.
As a kid I've knocked on many doors selling lottery tickets for a charity. I think pretty much all streets in the town was assigned to a route and one or two people.
We still get people collecting from the red cross every year.
For the record I hated knocking on doors, if my kid ever comes home with lottery tickets to sell on a given route, I'll buy then all and burn them before his mom makes me sell any!
if you're a sole, unknown candidate, how do you expect to be elected?
More seriously, you can still hand out leaflets, meet with locals in public, cold-calling the locals, sticking placards, talking to journalists working for a local publication (if available).
If you are too scared to step out of your house and meet your neighbors because you think your city is a warzone then you are not the kind who should be running for office anyways.
online communication, city densities, very fast movement of people, immigration, inexistence of third spaces, helicopter parenting and so many other things
There 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.
There’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.
I 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.
Political ads definitely do sway people. Especially the shit-flinging ads are effective.
The ones where a political figure lays out the bare basics of their programmes don't make a lot of impact, but the shittier the party and the more manipulative their advertising, the more these ads have an effect.
My cousin says there should be a maximum voting age. She says if people can't vote for the first 18 years of their life, why should they be able to vote for the last 18 years (e.g. if retired or older than 65)?
I disagree, of course. I don't talk to this cousin anymore. Personally I think the very elderly contain the wisdom for future generations, and make the best decisions because of all that wisdom, so they should really be in charge of everything.
Anyone who is 81 or older is elderly, therefore they have a lot of wisdom, therefore their decisions are the best. My opinion completely aligns with this logic with no deviation.
I can actually give a very specific real life example of political ads working because I have a friend who was part of the campaign. In Ohio there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot to legalize abortion. The orgs that spent millions of dollars getting it on the ballot were constantly polling to figure where they stand in terms of it passing. As a just in case they made a "break glass" ad campaign which talked about a 10 year old rape victim that had to be driven across state lines to get an abortion. At the 11th hour a few days before the vote they realized it wasn't going to pass. So they took that ad and blasted it across the state, you legitimately couldn't watch TV for more than 30 minutes and not see it at least twice. It covered every streaming service, youtube, facebook ads, tv. The polls went from 48-49% to almost 60% in favor and it passed.
I agree, we should ban influencers from accepting any money from parties or other political actors (think tanks, foreign nations...). We can't and shouldn't ban them from expressing their honest opinions, but we should keep the debate genuine.
That'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
Up to and including the snark at web devs. Every engineer I've met who thinks the web is somehow an easier form of software engineering couldn't write software worth a damn in general, let alone make a website. Universally incurious and dumb.
it'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.
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
The 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)
I 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.
Ads 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
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.
So 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.
You don't have to ban ads outright. A better solution would be to make life easier for ad blockers. Banning technical anti-measures and legal attacks against ad blockers would be a nice start. Then users would be able to choose ad blockers that best fit their needs.
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
Dutch 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”.
I 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.
Will 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?
Now 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.
> 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.
Ignoring 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).
I 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.
The 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.
Here 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.
It does seem like a lot of money, but distributed across all Americans it's not that insane. Americans spend approximately the same on election ads as on chewing gum.
The first thing an American politician does after winning an election is start fundraising for their next election. Governing would be an afterthought were it not so helpful in raising money.
Your post sounds conspiratorial but there are basic economic reasons why those revolving doors seem to exist.
Every campaign is going to need largely the same set of skill sets in their campaign staff. Spinning up these groups and also going through the startup time of any new team learning to work together costs a lot of time and money.
So several of these standard skill sets, like data science, marketing, etc have been spun out into companies or consulting firms that are treated like a pool of available resources by campaigns based on their party.
It’s not treated as a slush fund and there’s usually a handful of competitors in your parties pool but you do end up working with a lot of the same faces at different clients/campaigns if you work at one of the servicing companies.
I worked at one of them once and I recall realizing that fact when I asked why a coworkers email had numeral in his name when he had a relatively uncommon first and last name
Heavily depends on the country: Hungary. The government routinely the largest spender in Europe for online advertisement.
Btw, they just started categorise their online ads as non political through proxy companies. And they just jump to a new company when one becomes blocked.
Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent is bad. /s
Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions are, and not be able to say anything about their opponent. If you can't tell me what your plans are and all you can do is say why the other position is wrong, then you're not showing me you'd be an effective person to hold office.
However, that's what your website is for. Stop interrupting my whatever I was doing.
They think their opponent is bad because their opponent is not themself. That's not what the ads typically say though. Instead, they try to mislead uninformed voters into thinking the opponent is bad in the quickest way possible instead of explaining why the opponent is actually bad, which doesn't fit in a banner.
The 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.
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.
Yeah, 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.
Super 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
Commercial 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.
That'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?
We'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?
Every time I’m back in the UK I’m a bit shocked at how many people seem to smoke and vape compared to other countries. Including many of my friends. There’s still a long way to go!
Sure, but in reality those reuglations either aren't equally enforced, or companies have always found ways around it. I could even argue that SEO should be considered a form of advertising as the intent of SEO is at the end of the day consumer manipulation.
Even with the tobacco advertising ban, tobacco use in movies is still a problem and even if not one specific product, it still encourages smoking and has a real world effect (and this applies to vaping now as well).
Hell, even product placement and merchandising in stores could be advertising. It does influence consumer behavior afterall.
I'm all for getting rid of ads but it the regulation has to have teeth, and be very well defined.
Also things like Superbowl advertising that some people actually want to see.
But to enumerate some things distinguishing those from more offensive ads:
* You put effort into making that content engaging and interesting for the audience
* The advertising is at least vaguely relevant to the content around it.
* Someone can opt out of seeing your social media posts, or watching an influencer, or watching the Superbowl. People are annoyed when this is violated, e.g. by coordinated campaigns across many influencers.
* These ads aren't as violently intrusive, with massive volume and color changes or full screen popups.
* These ads are (perceived as) more privacy-respecting than say, Google ads.
* These ads don't displace better content like a billboard does.
In short, they're a more respectful transaction that people have control over.
IMO 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.)
I 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.
Please 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.
You 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.
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.
1. 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.
There 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)
> 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.
Yeah. 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.
And how do are people informed about new products they may need or changes to existing products that they now may need? What about reminding people about things they needed, but they forgot about? There needs to be someway for companies to reach consumers that isn't initiated by the consumer.
Some 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:
He’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.
> Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide information on what election, referendum or legislative process the ad is linked to, how much it cost and details on any targeting techniques used.
What a shit-show the EU has become, in fact it was always been like this, as far as I can tell. This law is, obviously, targeting what the neo-liberal powers that be are calling "populists" (at best) and/or "Russia's agents" (at worst, and the most recent), while doing nothing against the constant stream of propaganda coming from said neo-liberals ghouls, who also happen to hold the reins of power and to put forward these idiotic so-called "laws".
I get EU (political, just to be sure) propaganda ads on my Facebook feed almost each and every day, no matter if we're outside the election period or not, while from now on political movements will have to abide by these so called rules:
> Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide information on what election, referendum or legislative process the ad is linked to
So if communication of said political movement via social media is connected to no election, no referendum and to no specific legislative process then it basically becomes forbidden. Supposing my country (Romania in this case) decides to send the Army next door into the Republic of Moldova that will involve no "legislative process", it will be an executive order, we already have a law that handles sending the Army outside our borders if our security demands it, so in effect the anti-war political movements here in Romania will not be able to speak against this on social media. Absolute madness, but that's the bed the globalists are laying for themselves.
How 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.
> 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.
Good, political advertising is pay to win and should be banned across the world
I agree. But the most toxic extreme things get “engagement” so they will be promoted by the algorithm.
So does that help?
In 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
Political advertising is speech.
“Pay to speak”, rather. Still speech, but unfairly distributed.
Free speech does not imply being forced to listen a no-skip ad.
I mean, I guess advertisement for tobacco is speech too then but so what?
> pay to win
Kamala Harris would like a word.
Paying 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.
> Paying is necessary
Donald Trump would like a word.
Do I understand correctly that you're saying Donald Trump got lots of support from social networks and TV for free?
I 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-v...
These are only about direct donations. Most money in politics nowadays is this so-called "dark money". Most billionaires I can think of supported Trump: Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Thiel, Ellison... Lobbies generally favor the Right because they are more easily corrupted (Trump 2x his personal fortune in less than a year of presidency). Right-wing influencers got massive grants from think tanks, Russia and other conservative sources, etc.
> “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.
While I'm sympathetic to the sentiment here, it can be overly simplistic in some common cases. For instance, a newcomer might benefit disproportionately from the first X units of ad spending to "get their name out," relative to an incumbent or someone with a famous name spending the exact same price on the same X units, whose incremental effect might be less.
Alternately, a local candidate might not have funding for traditional media spots but might want to experiment with smaller ad buys, or might appeal to a demographic less likely to see traditional media spots. In all of these cases, this regulation disproportionately helps their opponent.
Of course, the incumbent often has funding for multiple times the ad spend of the newcomer, so the status quo wasn't necessarily a good situation either. Publicly funded campaigns, providing every candidate with an equal amount of money to be used across all types of advertising, could be highly effective here, but only in contexts where this can't be end-run by e.g. PACs in the U.S. post-Citizens United.
and 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
> 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.
Not in Europe, certainly not Denmark.
As a kid I've knocked on many doors selling lottery tickets for a charity. I think pretty much all streets in the town was assigned to a route and one or two people.
We still get people collecting from the red cross every year.
For the record I hated knocking on doors, if my kid ever comes home with lottery tickets to sell on a given route, I'll buy then all and burn them before his mom makes me sell any!
I'd honestly rather be a bad parent :)
Don’t be ridiculous. Canvassing is not a dangerous activity.
if you're a sole, unknown candidate, how do you expect to be elected?
More seriously, you can still hand out leaflets, meet with locals in public, cold-calling the locals, sticking placards, talking to journalists working for a local publication (if available).
If you are too scared to step out of your house and meet your neighbors because you think your city is a warzone then you are not the kind who should be running for office anyways.
What makes that more true today than, say, 40 years ago?
online communication, city densities, very fast movement of people, immigration, inexistence of third spaces, helicopter parenting and so many other things
> migration
What’s special about this? Are we in a period of particularly high migration? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_migration
There 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.
There’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.
"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.
As a EU citizen, I don't care? People are not swayed by political ads. They're swayed by influencers who push political agendas covertly.
I 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.
I 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.
Political ads definitely do sway people. Especially the shit-flinging ads are effective.
The ones where a political figure lays out the bare basics of their programmes don't make a lot of impact, but the shittier the party and the more manipulative their advertising, the more these ads have an effect.
The influencer problem is even bigger, of course.
Then why are they paying for them? They can literally see the exact CPC and CPA / CPM ratios that justify their spending
Ads influence people a lot. In particular the elderly generation.
My cousin says there should be a maximum voting age. She says if people can't vote for the first 18 years of their life, why should they be able to vote for the last 18 years (e.g. if retired or older than 65)?
I disagree, of course. I don't talk to this cousin anymore. Personally I think the very elderly contain the wisdom for future generations, and make the best decisions because of all that wisdom, so they should really be in charge of everything.
What is your general opinion on the wisdom and decision-making of politicians and heads of state that are above the age of 80?
Anyone who is 81 or older is elderly, therefore they have a lot of wisdom, therefore their decisions are the best. My opinion completely aligns with this logic with no deviation.
> elderly, therefore they have a lot of wisdom
That’s a hell of an assumption, though maybe this is missing a ‘/s’?
And the younger generation are influenced by influencers, which are also ads.
You are not immune to propaganda
Europeans are famously immune to propaganda.
I can actually give a very specific real life example of political ads working because I have a friend who was part of the campaign. In Ohio there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot to legalize abortion. The orgs that spent millions of dollars getting it on the ballot were constantly polling to figure where they stand in terms of it passing. As a just in case they made a "break glass" ad campaign which talked about a 10 year old rape victim that had to be driven across state lines to get an abortion. At the 11th hour a few days before the vote they realized it wasn't going to pass. So they took that ad and blasted it across the state, you legitimately couldn't watch TV for more than 30 minutes and not see it at least twice. It covered every streaming service, youtube, facebook ads, tv. The polls went from 48-49% to almost 60% in favor and it passed.
Influencers are a big problem indeed. The rules should be tightened quickly. Ads do work too, I'm afraid, so this is good
> People are not swayed by political ads.
That just means you are getting swayed, you just dont know it.
> People are not swayed by political ads
sure
Right? Who is that naive?
I agree, we should ban influencers from accepting any money from parties or other political actors (think tanks, foreign nations...). We can't and shouldn't ban them from expressing their honest opinions, but we should keep the debate genuine.
As a world citizen, you're projecting. Most people are indeed swayed by political ads, as the numbers clearly bear out.
That'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
> That's because you are a HN user, which selects for above average intelligence people
This forum became a parody of itself
You may not like the way he put it, but he is correct.
Up to and including the snark at web devs. Every engineer I've met who thinks the web is somehow an easier form of software engineering couldn't write software worth a damn in general, let alone make a website. Universally incurious and dumb.
it'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/
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
The 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)
I 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.
> I think it drives our global economy.
It does, but in the same way that gambling drives the Macau economy.
Ads 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
> 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.
So 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.
I think advertising should be eliminated. It just wastes people's time.
That would be ideal, but how do you define advertising? It could be a sign spray-painted with "good stuff only here".
You don't have to ban ads outright. A better solution would be to make life easier for ad blockers. Banning technical anti-measures and legal attacks against ad blockers would be a nice start. Then users would be able to choose ad blockers that best fit their needs.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45543352
Excellent! People with money won't be able to use those platforms to buy votes.
The 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) 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
Dutch 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...
Unpaywalled link: https://archive.is/VBqs7
This reeks of malicious compliance to me.
Oh thank god
Good. But how about political content that gets served to their users?
we ban the bad content and keep the good content, easy peasy way to dictatorship
Don’t want legitimate ads competing with the armies of Russian bots posting propaganda 24/7.
I 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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21407531
Sounds good to me
With 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?
Would 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?
Will 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?
Now 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.
Good, political ads are total crap, no matter what party they're for.
Good. The fewer ads in general, the better. And these Trump-corporations already have WAY too much influence.
Were they Biden-corporations just a couple short years ago?
It 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-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.
Democrats outspent Trump in 2020, 2024 and 2016
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/nx-s1-5173712/2024-election-a...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/...
Two 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
Trump received the equivalent of two billion dollars in free media coverage in 2016.
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...
Ignoring 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).
> 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.
I 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.
The 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.
Here 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.
> Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing) is near unfathomable.
Perhaps we should be delighted in the fact that political ads can win an election.
I have a hard time seeing other positive outcomes :)
It does seem like a lot of money, but distributed across all Americans it's not that insane. Americans spend approximately the same on election ads as on chewing gum.
Here's a source, but h/t James Gleick for the comparison: https://www.statista.com/topics/1841/chewing-gum/
The first thing an American politician does after winning an election is start fundraising for their next election. Governing would be an afterthought were it not so helpful in raising money.
Your post sounds conspiratorial but there are basic economic reasons why those revolving doors seem to exist.
Every campaign is going to need largely the same set of skill sets in their campaign staff. Spinning up these groups and also going through the startup time of any new team learning to work together costs a lot of time and money.
So several of these standard skill sets, like data science, marketing, etc have been spun out into companies or consulting firms that are treated like a pool of available resources by campaigns based on their party.
It’s not treated as a slush fund and there’s usually a handful of competitors in your parties pool but you do end up working with a lot of the same faces at different clients/campaigns if you work at one of the servicing companies.
I worked at one of them once and I recall realizing that fact when I asked why a coworkers email had numeral in his name when he had a relatively uncommon first and last name
Heavily depends on the country: Hungary. The government routinely the largest spender in Europe for online advertisement.
Btw, they just started categorise their online ads as non political through proxy companies. And they just jump to a new company when one becomes blocked.
>distort the narrative
Whatever would we do if we didn't have the corporate/billionaire narrative to guide our lives!
Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent is bad. /s
Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions are, and not be able to say anything about their opponent. If you can't tell me what your plans are and all you can do is say why the other position is wrong, then you're not showing me you'd be an effective person to hold office.
However, that's what your website is for. Stop interrupting my whatever I was doing.
They think their opponent is bad because their opponent is not themself. That's not what the ads typically say though. Instead, they try to mislead uninformed voters into thinking the opponent is bad in the quickest way possible instead of explaining why the opponent is actually bad, which doesn't fit in a banner.
Also that they have to actually be your positions and you can't just promise one thing and do a completely different thing.
Then they'd all say the same thing with "my positions will be those of whoever writes the largest check"
Holding politicians legally accountable for their campaign promises will never happen, but I love the idea.
My favorite reform idea is to make politicians wear NASCAR style suits with all of their sponsor's logos attached
> 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.
The 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.
It's amazing how an industry can conduct research that provides them with the exact answer they want
Depends 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.
Yeah, 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.
Super 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
The 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.
Sounds like a pretty standard election sign/billboard design in any country.
Banning political ads would completely negate what a democratic free society is.
Commercial 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.
At least the worst thing that comes out of that is losing money. With political ads, you lose a country.
I would go even further: banning all ads, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
That'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?
We 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.
We'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?
In 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.
Every time I’m back in the UK I’m a bit shocked at how many people seem to smoke and vape compared to other countries. Including many of my friends. There’s still a long way to go!
Your 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.
> But how would you define what's advertising and what's not?
The same way we define what is and isn't political advertising? Or tobacco advertising, alcohol advertising etc.
> But, is the SEO I do advertising?
No, it's SEO.
> What about when I share my work to my socials, is that advertising? Post a reel
No, this is just sharing your work.
> Likewise with product placement in films, influencer marketing, etc.
Is it really complicated though? We already regulate what can and can't be said in all these forms of advertising.
Sure, but in reality those reuglations either aren't equally enforced, or companies have always found ways around it. I could even argue that SEO should be considered a form of advertising as the intent of SEO is at the end of the day consumer manipulation.
Even with the tobacco advertising ban, tobacco use in movies is still a problem and even if not one specific product, it still encourages smoking and has a real world effect (and this applies to vaping now as well).
Hell, even product placement and merchandising in stores could be advertising. It does influence consumer behavior afterall.
I'm all for getting rid of ads but it the regulation has to have teeth, and be very well defined.
It seems quite simple to me. Are you paying for that? Or providing any benefit equivalent to a payment? Then it's an ad.
Also things like Superbowl advertising that some people actually want to see.
But to enumerate some things distinguishing those from more offensive ads:
* You put effort into making that content engaging and interesting for the audience
* The advertising is at least vaguely relevant to the content around it.
* Someone can opt out of seeing your social media posts, or watching an influencer, or watching the Superbowl. People are annoyed when this is violated, e.g. by coordinated campaigns across many influencers.
* These ads aren't as violently intrusive, with massive volume and color changes or full screen popups.
* These ads are (perceived as) more privacy-respecting than say, Google ads.
* These ads don't displace better content like a billboard does.
In short, they're a more respectful transaction that people have control over.
IMO 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.)
> 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.
I 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.
Lots of illegal things could fund other things, making them “free”.
I mean, it worked for the CIA and the Contras...
Yeah we could sell coke and guns abroad to fund single-payer healthcare.
Please 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.
I gave a link to an extensive HN discussion, not a blog.
Sounds 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.
You 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.
The 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.
Yellow 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
Not 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.
That directory for tech would be like ProductHunt. Do you like it?
1. 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.
1. 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.
For #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.
There 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)
> 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.
Yeah. 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.
> There could be an index where you list your product/service, so people can find your stuff when they need it.
There is already one, it's called a search engine.
>so people can find your stuff when they need it
And how do are people informed about new products they may need or changes to existing products that they now may need? What about reminding people about things they needed, but they forgot about? There needs to be someway for companies to reach consumers that isn't initiated by the consumer.
When I want it, I will start a search and find something new. I don't need constant bombardment with brands "I forgot about".
> 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.
Some 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...
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.
He’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.
> Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide information on what election, referendum or legislative process the ad is linked to, how much it cost and details on any targeting techniques used.
What a shit-show the EU has become, in fact it was always been like this, as far as I can tell. This law is, obviously, targeting what the neo-liberal powers that be are calling "populists" (at best) and/or "Russia's agents" (at worst, and the most recent), while doing nothing against the constant stream of propaganda coming from said neo-liberals ghouls, who also happen to hold the reins of power and to put forward these idiotic so-called "laws".
By requiring transparency? What's the actual problem here?
Maybe make a case for it if you think you have such good arguments
I get EU (political, just to be sure) propaganda ads on my Facebook feed almost each and every day, no matter if we're outside the election period or not, while from now on political movements will have to abide by these so called rules:
> Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide information on what election, referendum or legislative process the ad is linked to
So if communication of said political movement via social media is connected to no election, no referendum and to no specific legislative process then it basically becomes forbidden. Supposing my country (Romania in this case) decides to send the Army next door into the Republic of Moldova that will involve no "legislative process", it will be an executive order, we already have a law that handles sending the Army outside our borders if our security demands it, so in effect the anti-war political movements here in Romania will not be able to speak against this on social media. Absolute madness, but that's the bed the globalists are laying for themselves.
How 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.
> 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.
Fewer ads is always great.
Not everyone wants to be molested by ads. I for instance don't. I think ads should be forbidden.
That sounds like a threat of violence.