Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by h1fra | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

h1fra

Good, political advertising is pay to win and should be banned across the world

View on HN

> 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.

From what I can find for the 2024 presidential election:

Trump/Republicans spent a total of $2.13 billion vs. $3.37 billion by Harris/Dems. This is inclusive of "dark money".

[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-tr...

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-tr...

[3] https://www.campaignnow.com/blog/dems-outspent-gop-2-to-1

[4] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark...

[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/...

And Hillary Clinton.

Thinking you can change strongly held opinions with advertising is wrong.

I imagine the devil is in the details though, no? Ie it definitely changes at least one, right? So the real question is cost vs voted gained.

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

The problem here is that now the ones who can't advertise are the people actually running as well as the parties.

"Influencers" CAN advocate for anyone and their ads will show just fine.

So now the one with the most powerful and popular influencers will win. Hint: it's not the left wing people who have far-reaching popular podcasters and tiktokers in the EU...

Political advertising is speech.

“Pay to speak”, rather. Still speech, but unfairly distributed.

Yes free as in speech versus free as in beer, is the literal expression .

Free speech does not imply being forced to listen a no-skip ad.

Yes. If someone does that, please call law enforcement about the kidnapping.

I mean, I guess advertisement for tobacco is speech too then but so what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com