undefined | Better HN

0 pointsslg8y ago0 comments

Ads aren't the problem anymore. Campaign finance reform in meaningless in the age of bots and social media. It is becoming harder and harder to separate paid political advertisements in the form of astroturfing from genuine grassroots support. Any move to cut down on the former is going to be seen as an assault on the 1st Amendment.

Meanwhile the companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have disincentives to cut down on this type of thing. The added traffic, even it is from dummy accounts in Russia, is added revenue. It also seems like a majority of our elected officials are fine with anything that keeps them in power. Odds are this gets worse before it gets better.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

maxerickson8y ago· 4 in thread

Where does the revenue come from again?

Anyway, I think a lot of people will be more influenced by a targeted video ad than a random post on reddit. But that's like, just my opinion.

slgOP8y ago

>Where does the revenue come from again?

Ad revenue. Even if these companies don't collect money from the political astroturning, they receive increased traffic and engagement. Those are two of the biggest factors in online ad revenue.

>Anyway, I think a lot of people will be more influenced by a targeted video ad than a random post on reddit. But that's like, just my opinion.

I don't know. People have gotten pretty good at tuning out marketing when they know they are being marketed to. That is why word of mouth support can be so important. On social media it is getting very hard to identify marketing. I would bet seeing dozens of comments a day about how "Clinton is untrustworthy" would be more effective than hearing that same rhetoric in a video that starts with "I am Donald Trump and I approve this message."

pilsetnieks8y ago

What about regulating advertising more strictly? I.e., if you couldn't do cpm (cost per impression) ads, all that increased traffic and engagement doesn't matter anymore, or at least matters much less. Or, limiting advertising entirely in a political forum - that would also render all that additional traffic moot. As a result, these sites would have no incentive to hosting any political content. I know it's implausible but maybe that's a direction to look at? Instead of limiting the content (free speech issues,) limit the motivations for facilitating such discourse.

bluGill8y ago

The margin of victory in an election is often small enough that you need everything. Sure a targeted video is more influential on the total population, but both sides are doing that. If you can get one person to vote your way from some other means that means may well be worth it.

Politicians do not want money, they want votes. Some votes can be bought by a video, others by a fake opinion on some news aggregator.

hsod8y ago

It's not just one post, it's lots of posts, all over the place, every day, for months. It's not hard for me to imagine how a well-funded campaign could subtly warp someone's perception of reality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse