Hacker News Reader

Comment by maym86 | Hacker News Reader

Can someone please explain the argument against passing laws forcing all adverts on advertising platforms like Facebook and Google to be searchable and transparent so we can see who is purchasing them, the parameters used for targeting the advert and what they are publishing? I can't see a downside for the majority of people.

View on HN

Perhaps because 1st Amendment gives right to anonymous speech: https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

Perhaps because it gives established players a big leg up in terms of compliance costs (imagine being a small news site having to create this searchable system etc)

The 1st Amendment is just US law. What would be the argument elsewhere?

Retaliation by employers for funding certain speech. Violent retaliation for funding certain speech.

There is no 1st Amendment in the EU.

(This is the EU, not the US, but I'll concede that people having the right to anonymous speech is a good idea)

Your right to anonymous free speech does not mean Facebook is obligated to let you express that right, only that the government can't restrict your right to anonymous free speech. No reason you can't set up your own anonymous website.

It'll be a hassle for Facebook?

At this point, it's worth it.

> explain the argument against passing laws forcing

If laws protect people. more laws = better? What is the downside of passing any law?

In this case I could face discrimination at work if they found out that I was buying ads for my anti abortion website.

> If laws protect people. more laws = better? What is the downside of passing any law?

No this is a question about a specific law. Making it a general point about all laws is disingenuous. Why do anything ever?

Did you read the second sentence starting with "In this case.."

You edited and added it after I had responded to your original post which didn't have the second sentence.

No I didn't.

Similar to what happened to Brendan Eich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com