Hacker News Reader

Comment by IAmGraydon | Hacker News Reader

They need to ban political ads, period. For good.

Toss in pharmaceuticals while we're at it. Both are purchases that individuals should research from trusted sources, not "ask their doctor about" or decide based on gut instinct. I don't think it's OK to let Pepsi and Coke sink their mental manipulation hooks into your brain... let alone political candidates and drugs.

The US and New Zealand are the only countries in the world that allow pharma ads.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/medications/do-not-get-sold-o...

For prescription drugs.

We have drug ads in Canada, too.

Hey man, I didn't know I had restless leg syndrome until they told me I did in the commercial. My left eye twitches now but at least my legs don't shake when I sleep.

who knew that had a name! i always just called that Jimmy Legs

There's no way to define "political ad".

Anything can be a political ad, whether it says so overtly or not.

That ends up meaning subjective reviewers looking at things an just deciding they think something's "real" purpose in political, and failing to identify others that actually are.

I'd say political speech is a very important category of free speech.

Free speech is only in reference to government restrictions not private platforms

This comes up in every such discussion. The legalities of free speech apply only to government restriction, true. But the concept and ideals of free speech are something that a private platform can support and promote, or suppress and bury.

We need a concept to distinguish these for speech, like for software. Something like "Free as in legal" vs "Free as in voice".

Ads are not speech.

Electing not to host political advertisements on a private platform is not a free speech issue.

It is when it’s a general purpose ad platform. It’s just not a First Amendment issue. Free speech isn’t just a synonym for a law that protects it from the government.

That also has the effect of locking in incumbent people and parties. No political ads means it's even less possible to get new candidates before lots of eyeballs.

They need to ban ads, period. For good.

Say I want to advertise my new documentary on climate change, should that be banned?

This is a bizarre non-sequitor "what aboutism" that I feel is stolen from some pundit

----- Edit: Same thing with the "But what is politics??" comment duplicated twice below

I don't get why you think this is anything other than a very obvious and genuine question that hasn't been answered.

Someone said "ban political ads", and I don't know what that means. Does it mean banning any ad that references a politician or political party? Any ad that references an explicitly political issue? Any controversial issue that's currently a hot political topic?

I want to know what people's views are on this, which is why I asked.

This isn't whataboutism; it's not trying to deflect from the original. It's a very valid claim. When science (or insert topic X here) is politicized and political ads are banned, then are stories about science (insert topic X here) also banned?

It's impossible to define what is a political ad that satisfies, say, 75% of the populace.

What constitutes a "political" add?

"Hi, my name is Total Liar and I'm running for Useless Government Position. I'm going to lie to you about what I'm going to do and instead line my pockets, sell my book, and appear on your favorite hate-cast about people you disagree with! Don't forget to donate so we can DOMINATE the <libs|GQP>!"

What constitutes a political ad?

I think "Does it mention or show a politian or political party?" is a reasonable first pass, with room to add additional restrictions as people find loopholes.

"Go to youtube and watch <influencer> NOW, your way of life depends on this upcoming vote!"

<influencer> on youtube: ...vote <politician>!

I'm not sure this answers the question because it fails to define what "political" means.

In this narrow definition, a politician is a person holding or running for elected office, and a political party is a specifically registered organization that is formed with the express intent of organizing voters and politicians, such that the voters vote for the politicians. There's a list on Wikipedia [1].

Of course, this narrow definition leaves out a lot of political issue ads that don't mention candidates or political parties by name, but are still very much political. Things like "support / oppose access to guns / abortion / health care / immigration / education / clean water / fair elections / military service / communication / electricity / there's a lot of other stuff" are quite often political ads without necessarily being tied to any particular candidate or party.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_t...

Context: This is within one week of an election. It's a bit clearer in that context. If it says "vote for X" or "X is a horrible person/candidate/waste of matter", then it's political. Ditto if it says that about ballot initiative Y.

Within this context, if it says "the federal reserve eats frozen puppies", it's likely not political. Ditto if it says "embargo country X for reason Y".

It can still be grey. If candidate X runs on position Y, and an ad is about position Y without ever mentioning candidate X, it's probably still political.

But all in all, it's about the election, not politics in general, and so it's a lot more clear. Not perfectly clear, no, but it's more clear than politics in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com