Hacker News Reader

Comment by malvosenior | Hacker News Reader

"Facebook has refused to provide the British parliament with the names of individuals behind a shadowy network backing an extreme ‘no deal’ Brexit outcome over a government-negotiated compromise."

Good? Why on earth should governments be allowed to pressure companies to disclose who is advertising on their platform? It's not like this company is breaking into people's houses and forcing them to do things at gun point, they're just running ads. Honestly, if an ad can convince people that your position is bunk, maybe it's not that great of a position to begin with.

View on HN

You don't want a company to abide by the law of the lands in which it operates? Political advertising is regulated in many countries.

So why would you draw a distinction with breaking into a house? The only difference is they have not chosen to break that law, yet.

Not liking the law is an entirely different matter.

They are abiding with the law, though. They have been asked for information and replied that they don't just give out information because people ask - essentially they said 'come back with a warrant.' That's perfectly reasonable.

It would be if the select committee system were an organ of the police. They are not, and warrants are not required.

Ok, so the select committee system questions have compulsory answers?

In the US, the committee would have to subpoena in order to legally force the answer. Is that not the case here?

The Constitutional Society wrote an 86-page paper in 2012 attempting to show that any such powers are extinct, and that primary legislation is necessary to restore them: https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-...

But late last year, a select committee exercised these powers anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...

The question is one of enforcement. Parliament can certainly order the production of documents, and send the Serjeant-at-Arms to threaten consequences if the documents aren't provided. That was enough in November to get the documents coughed up (one suspects that the target in that case had no particular incentive to test the limits of constitutional authority, given it wasn't his secrets he was being coerced over - a good excuse for handing them over would seem to be enough).

What's not abundantly clear is if Parliament can actually still carry through its threat of imprisonment for contempt, if the recipient of the order decides to face down the Serjeant. It's possible that the courts would swiftly issue a writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis that contempt of Parliament is defunct.

It's also possible that the European Court of Human Rights would consider legislative proceedings for contempt to be a breach of the Convention, but as actions of Parliament are outside the reach of the Human Rights Act (which makes the Convention directly applicable in the UK) they have no way of enforcing the decision even if they made it - and it would take months at least to get to the front of the queue.

Loosely yes. Refusing to answer can lead to you being in contempt of parliament. Once upon a time there was even a prison cell in parliament for use in such cases.

Unfortunately our oversight committees depend on some fairly ancient ways and powers. Hence the cute story a few months ago of the parliamentary bailiff, which is normally a purely ceremonial role, arresting that Six Three guy passing through the UK.

Perhaps those ancient laws need modernising, as there's certainly a few relics among them. Then again it is only fairly recently they have been started to be treated with contempt.

If you are legally required to disclose X and you don’t disclose X, a committee would not need to get a subpoena to force you to do so. The difference is that you’re required to share this information from the beginning, not being asked to do so later.

>if an ad can convince people that your position is bunk, maybe it's not that great of a position to begin with.

I disagree. Ideas are powerful and propaganda, media, and advertisement are powerful idea spreaders. This power is totally irrelevant to whether or not the idea is moral, realistic, or even just factually true

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the antivax movement is restricted to a handful of cranks.

Political advertising is regulated in the UK.

This seems like a great example as to why that's a bad idea.

That sentence makes no sense.

Only during campaigns.

This sword cuts both ways. The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain, let alone things like unbilled time of the civil service. They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did.

This, we are told, is OK, because the spending happened a few weeks before the official campaigning period began, and thus the usual rules about political advertising did not apply.

Well, if these rules being applied to the letter can let the Remain campaigners flout the spirit of the spending rules (which is fine by me - that's the point of written rules) then for sure, this campaign also doesn't have to follow any of those rules, as it's outside the election / referendum controlled periods.

The government sent out that mailshot, not the remain campaign.

Same with the unbilled civil service time.

During an election should the incumbent party be billed for all the extra security for the Prime Minister, Chancellor etc?

We have party politics, sometimes its hard/impossible to separate government from party.

> The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain

As benj111 points out, it was the _Government_, not the Remain campaign. Different rules apply to them (they are prohibited from campaigning _at all_ during the 28 days prior to the referendum). Furthermore, a large percentage of distribution (to England) was done at a spend time when the spending rules did not apply at all (which to my understanding means the Leave campaign could have _also_ spend more during that time).

> They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did.

This is an exaggeration. The cost of the mailshot was £9.3m[1] - the Leave campaign could spend up to £7m (in the regulated time - as above, I believe it is unlimited outside of that), with UKIP a further £4m (and other groups could spend up to £700k). More, yes, as the Remain campaign could _also_ spend up to £7m, but "far, far more" feels like an overstatement.

[1] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...

This is sophistry - the Remain campaign was the government. It was the official position of the government and the entire thing was organised by them. There was simply no distinction between them at all.

Again, people here are finding ways to excuse behaviour for their favoured team based on legalistic readings of the rules. Which is fine, if it's applied consistently. Of course it isn't because the goal here is not to be fairly applying campaigning rules, but rather to try and stop the UK leaving the EU via any means possible.

Because in order to make an informed choice in a democracy there are regulations in place to ensure spending limits and puts an identity on political advertising.

An example of what you don't want is the heavy investment in Brexit and Trump by Russia

I don't care who invests in advertising. If someone has something to say, they should be allowed to say it and I as the reader can decide for myself if I agree or not. I don't need to government doing that for me.

Do you think advertising works, to influence outcomes? (There are a lot of people betting enormous sums of money that it does.)

Should hostile nation states be allowed to advertise anonymously to influence electoral outcomes?

Do you think the people should get a say in whether hostile nations get to influence electoral outcomes?

The government is the agent of the people.

And if a politician makes specific political promises to specific populations which are contradictory? Or if an ad company sends you lies proportional to the amount of bullshit you are analytically predicted to receive? Or if a foreign government with clear malicious motives want to spew chaos by posing controversial chaos and inciting arguments between two populations?

Everything that you've ever encountered has made some tiny impression on you. Advertising is a "weaponized" process that aims to force a set of impressions on people where the agents behind it think that they know how those impressions will alter their behavior. Even if you think that you are not influenced by advertising -- though you certainly are in some way, since you are experiencing it -- you have to see that unregulated media platforms are magnifying all kinds of kookiness.

Heavy? I thought it they only found ~$20 million ad spending by Russians. When either side spent a billion dollar.

How do you know, if there isn't transparency?

I don't know what the breakdown is for Brexit spending, but $20m would be heavy in a UK context. The official Leave/Remain campaigns could only spend £7m each.

No Deal Brexit isn't extreme, but good effort on trying to shift the Overton Window.

What is more extreme? Firing off a few farewell missiles?

A no deal Brexit is literally the most extreme Brexit. There is nothing more 'Brexity'.

Having a Brexit that is Brexity is entirely the point, no? What is the point of a Brexit that is a bit Brexity?

Well most of the current predicament is that it was never decided how Brexity the Brexit should be, I don't think it follows that just because we voted for a Brexit, we should jump off the deep end and go for the most extreme version.

According to the Government's Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019 document:

> This estimates that the UK economy would be 6.3-9% smaller in the long term in a no deal scenario (after around 15 years) than it otherwise would have been when compared with today’s arrangements, assuming no action is taken.

> Although our food supply is diverse, resilient, and sourced from a wide variety of countries, the potential disruption to trade across the Short Channel Crossings would lead to reduced availability and choice of products.

> HMRC has estimated that the administrative burden on businesses from customs declarations alone, on current (2016) UK-EU trade in goods could be around £13bn p.a.

That feels pretty extreme to me.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

I don't think you can infer whether something is politically extreme or not off the back of piss poor planning.

In general, no, but at this point _continuing_ to advocate for a No Deal Brexit is extreme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com