Hacker News Reader

Comment by victorbjorklund | Hacker News Reader

It is not just propaganda. Its also normal political parties that try to reach out to voters to inform them of their politics.

View on HN

Which definition of propaganda are you using that doesn't include this?

The common definition used these days is including a manipulative character. Just neutrally delivering information is not seen as manipulative. Though it's of course disputable which case something is.

In the UK this is regulated spend, except the rules weren't updated for social media and all sorts of dark money adverts started appearing.

The UK system gives both a minimum and a cap. Parties are entitled to a TV slot and I believe each candidate gets a free constituency mailshot as well. Beyond that the amount of money that can be spent is supposed to be capped.

An important issue is the lack of transparency in campaigning expenses, which are capped in several countries. This is the principle that underpins the Sarkozy-Kadhafi affair (illegal presidential campaign funding) or the Brexit Cambridge Analytica affair (though that goes beyond that).

... or the German "Grüner Mist" scandal campaign in Germany in front of the 2021 federal elections [1].

[1] https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/gruener-mist/

> It is not just propaganda. Its also normal political parties that try to reach out to voters to inform them of their politics.

I wonder how I would be able to spot the difference in practice?

It's propaganda if you disagree, and normal if you agree.

Bingo; and one side's legitimate outreach appears to the other side to be blatant propaganda. Paid or unpaid. That's the normal nature of democracy; it's a contact sport.

It's better if people see all messages with proper attribution rather than an intermediary deciding what's allowed and what is not.

Incidentally, in the US at least, the old fashioned TV networks are require to offer all political candidates the same, lowest, media rates. PACs and outside money pay market rates.

> It's better if people see all messages with proper attribution

We’re talking about targeted ads on social media.

No one sees the same political ads. Everyone sees a customized version of whatever lie they want to tell you. Get that shit out of the shadows and out in the public where everyone can see who says what. They shouldn’t be whispering what they want in everyone’s ears.

This is the problem. When political messages are out in the open where everyone can see and challenge them it’s healthy.

When it’s whispers tailored to individuals playing on their hopes and fears…

Paid political are a problem no matter what, because one shouldn't need half a billion dollar in ad budget before starting a campaign otherwise you end up in an oligarchy real quick.

>Paid or unpaid. That's the normal nature of democracy;

It isn't in Europe. Most European countries have limits on how much can be spend on political campaigning and when campaigning takes place, and the difference between the smallest and largest parties is within the same order of magnitude, this is so because if one can simply buy an election this has nothing to do with democracy, an equal competition of ideas unrelated to one's financial resources.

Democracy isn't a contact sport, it's not even a sport, it's intentional deliberation between ordinary people at an appropriate place and time. Turning politics into 24/7 live TV bread and circus entertainment is exactly what's destroying it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com