Kamala Harris would like a word.
In her case, the campaign started too late. And despite being a household name, her policies were less known.
Thinking you can change strongly held opinions with advertising is wrong.
If it was about money, Trump wouldn’t have had a chance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/11/04/trump-v...
So does that help?
"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...
Grassroots campaigns are not banned. Organic social media activity is not banned. Smaller parties will be just fine. This will only negatively impact politicians/parties/corporations who think that spending more money entitles them to a louder voice.
Alternately, a local candidate might not have funding for traditional media spots but might want to experiment with smaller ad buys, or might appeal to a demographic less likely to see traditional media spots. In all of these cases, this regulation disproportionately helps their opponent.
Of course, the incumbent often has funding for multiple times the ad spend of the newcomer, so the status quo wasn't necessarily a good situation either. Publicly funded campaigns, providing every candidate with an equal amount of money to be used across all types of advertising, could be highly effective here, but only in contexts where this can't be end-run by e.g. PACs in the U.S. post-Citizens United.
Not in Europe, certainly not Denmark.
As a kid I've knocked on many doors selling lottery tickets for a charity. I think pretty much all streets in the town was assigned to a route and one or two people.
We still get people collecting from the red cross every year.
For the record I hated knocking on doors, if my kid ever comes home with lottery tickets to sell on a given route, I'll buy then all and burn them before his mom makes me sell any!
I'd honestly rather be a bad parent :)
More seriously, you can still hand out leaflets, meet with locals in public, cold-calling the locals, sticking placards, talking to journalists working for a local publication (if available).
E.g. Russia happily bans organisations that promote AIDS awareness because they a) receive foreign money and b) "work to influence political decisions".
Oh, we all know which political ads we don't want. The problem is that sometimes promoting worthwhile causes or just existing may and will end up political
If I was an evil incumbent dictator, I would immediately outlaw political advertisements and give the people exactly what so many people here seem to be asking for. Then, I would give official government speeches every day talking about how awesome I am. I wouldn’t even have to talk badly about my opponents. You would never hear about them in the first place.
Journalists often work on behalf of organizations, both for-profit and non-profit. Those companies have the freedom (your mileage may vary in your country) to report on whatever they like, and in many cases, say whatever they like. And I can see why journalism seems like the ideal “alternative” to advertising, but it’s also hard to define/limit, without killing it.
In your ideal scenario, “journalists” are allowed to interview and write an article about a candidate to get the word out. They can say positive or negative things about that candidate. That’s not “advertising” though. Cool.
Imagine candidate A is running on a platform of “increase taxes on apples” an I think we should raise taxes on bananas instead. Which of the following activities are allowed in this political-advertising free country? 1) writing a blog post about my opinion 2) posting on hacker news comments about my opinion 3) submitting a link to Hacker News about my opinion 4) running for office myself 5) accepting donations from other people who agree with me 6) starting an independent magazine called “Fruit tax weekly” 7) paying employees to help with the magazine 8) selling the magazine 9) giving the magazine away 10) standing on a street corner and telling people my opinion 11) paying to rent an auditorium to give a speech 12) putting up a poster about my speech 13) writing a Mac app for my magazine 14) paying for advertising of my Mac app in the App Store 15) paying someone to put up a poster about my speech 16) studying to become a fruit tax journalist 17) writing an article about bananas 18) running a full page ad in a newspaper that just says “I hate bananas” or “bananas are bad for you” 19) write an article in my magazine about candidates that are for or against the Apple/Banana tax 20) have my magazine accept donations 21) link to an article that someone wrote about me 22) paying to advertise my blog 23) paying to advertise the article someone wrote about me 23) paying to advertise the article someone wrote about my opponent ——
Some of the answers are probably easy. But it’s easy to imagine exploiting most of those activities to circumvent the “ad” ban.
If we ban “political ads”, we don’t just get rid of “those annoying ads I don’t like seeing on TV and the internet, that are hard to define, but can’t we all agree they are annoying?” You put a chilling effect on many forms of speech, even the ones ostensibly allowed. You also chill the ability to speak about the ban itself.
And if the answer to the above questions centers on anything that rhymes with “we’d have a government agency/tribunal that determined whether something is political speech or not”, I would argue you’ve created a censorship machine controlled by the people that are currently in power.
This becomes especially scary when you replace the apples vs banana tax with something that you consider more concerning and consequential.
"...just like requiring transparency on political ad purchases." is the part that rings in my head.
I am happy this law has an effect and potentially opens the doors to other players.
The ones where a political figure lays out the bare basics of their programmes don't make a lot of impact, but the shittier the party and the more manipulative their advertising, the more these ads have an effect.
The influencer problem is even bigger, of course.
I disagree, of course. I don't talk to this cousin anymore. Personally I think the very elderly contain the wisdom for future generations, and make the best decisions because of all that wisdom, so they should really be in charge of everything.
That just means you are getting swayed, you just dont know it.
This forum became a parody of itself
The only thing is that, compared to before, they get less attention relative to content that was always unboosted. Which includes organic unbiased content which is better for the consumer so thats actually a plus
But that unboosted content also includes astroturfing which can now become more of a persons timeline
If the regulators are motivated to clear up the online content space of bad faith political influence, the next thing they should do is try to curb botting and astroturfing (while respecting freedom)
It does, but in the same way that gambling drives the Macau economy.
In contrast, a "good" ad is just a recommendation for something you haven't heard of, but you love and are glad you were told about it. There are tons of products and services out there you haven't heard of.
People might not believe this, think that if they would really love it, they would have searched for it, found it through organic means, etc. But if that were true, these companies wouldn't be bringing in $100B+ each, and generating $1T+ spend each
(Paywalled) Source: https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-media/advertenties-over-armoede...
This reeks of malicious compliance to me.
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/
But the new rules also don't solve anything. Political advertising is not necessarily related to specific elections , which means that over time , either the EU will broaden the definition of political ads to basically outlaw all opinions or all the political advertising shifts from eponymous to anonymous
I wonder if this has to do with Chat Control, or something else?
it’s hard to detect, but it works like this. Let’s say you want to promote fear of AI, then you just show ads(no association with the topic, it’s just to transfer funds) or do live chat donations on influencers that are into fear mongering against AI. shortly, other start noticing that there is money in this and more and more influencers are doing it.
I mean things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/election-mus...
> A political action committee (Pac) linked to Elon Musk is accused of targeting Jewish and Arab American voters in swing states with dramatically different messages about Kamala Harris’s position on Gaza, a strategy by Trump allies aimed at peeling off Democratic support for the vice-president.
> Texts, mailers, social media ads and billboards targeting heavily Arab American areas in metro Detroit paint Harris as a staunch ally of Israel who will continue supplying arms to the country. Meanwhile, residents in metro Detroit or areas of Pennsylvania with higher Jewish populations have been receiving messaging that underscores her alleged support for the Palestinian cause.
There seems to be no attempt at making elections fair by providing all candidates with the same funding and the same air time.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/nx-s1-5173712/2024-election-a...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/...
1. as in the example of my post, you can do extremely dirty ads tactics that are much more effective than plain ads, making your money go a long way
2. these don't count social media bots, especially when financed by external actors
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t...
Elon Musk spent $44 billion dollars to buy Twitter and then prioritized right wing pro Trump messaging in 2024.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5156184/elon-musk-trump...
I find this quote from the article amusing.
If EU political ads are anything like USA political ads, the objective of the ad is rarely, if ever, to educate the audience.
The objective of most political ads is to confuse, disorient, and distort the narrative.
Not at all.
Also the scale is no where near.
TV2 in Denmark just ran an article saying that the 24 politicians and parties buying the most ads bought a total of 250k ads ahead of this policy coming into effect.
Note that same month last year the spend was ~1/3.
I know Denmark is small, ~5-6M, but that's doesn't seem like a lot of money.
Whatever would we do if we didn't have the corporate/billionaire narrative to guide our lives!
Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions are, and not be able to say anything about their opponent. If you can't tell me what your plans are and all you can do is say why the other position is wrong, then you're not showing me you'd be an effective person to hold office.
However, that's what your website is for. Stop interrupting my whatever I was doing.
Very much this. These ads make me very much not want to vote for the candidate which is the opposite of what they wanted.
If your definition is: an ad that explicitly involves a party/politician, why?
It seems like they're going to happen regardless, the difference is the subtly. For example, there's a lot of accounts purposefully pushing ideologies, and focusing on specific events for a political purpose on social media.
Arguably, these are much more dangerous than explicit political ads.
Yes, I am fully aware the next problem in all this is how does the politician then notify the district of the place and time of the next meeting. It would be great if congress, as a body, had a mechanism in place to handle this so that it is equally applied for any registered candidate regardless of party affiliation or primary favoritism.
Seriously, if politicians want cheap media coverage then they should do something worthy of coverage. There is one politician I can think of right now, far outside my local district, that is on one edge of the political spectrum and simultaneously performing the miracle of picking up tremendous popularity from the opposite edge of the political spectrum. They finally learned to tune their messaging from party political theater to rapidly changing opinions on current events in ways other politicians cannot. I am hearing way more about people like that than the person from my district, who isn't doing anything worth of media attention.
They have no shareholders or fudiciary duties, they are formed as non profits 501(c)4's with no purpose except their stated political position (for a policy / candidate, or against a policy / candidate) and this comes with no limitation on what they can own and do with the money
and this is all based on the flawed theory that spending equals votes
it's the dumbest reality that I thought would have been solved by constitutional amendment after Citizen's United but nope! how are you not taking advantage of this stupidity! the spending has only grown from all sides
I've built a relatively successful professional photography side hussle without "advertising" as in, I've never paid for an ad on any of the social platforms or google ads. Most of my business comes from word of mouth, or hits on my website.
But, is the SEO I do advertising? What about when I share my work to my socials, is that advertising? Post a reel of behind the scenes footage of me photographing a wedding so potential clients can see my process, is that advertising?
I do all of those things with the goal to drum up business, but they fall outside of the traditional meaning of the word. Likewise with product placement in films, influencer marketing, etc.
How do we even begin to draw the line at what is an advertisement and whats not?
I think it makes more sense to target what kind of ads should be banned (e.g. politics, alcohol, cigarets, religion, etc.) and what ads format should be banned (e.g. loud ads, ads in the subway, etc.)
No quitting your corporate job to start your own business, you’re not allowed to advertise.
This is almost an endorsement of the rules to me.
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-far-right-germany-england...
Probably a big driving force behind those new rules as well.
That's why the far-right frames this as overregulation, it directly impacts them.
Flamebait about nations/regions is not acceptable on HN. We've had to ask you before not to do this. We have to ban accounts that keep doing it and ignore our requests to stop. Please, once again, remind yourself of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
> Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide information on what election, referendum or legislative process the ad is linked to
So if communication of said political movement via social media is connected to no election, no referendum and to no specific legislative process then it basically becomes forbidden. Supposing my country (Romania in this case) decides to send the Army next door into the Republic of Moldova that will involve no "legislative process", it will be an executive order, we already have a law that handles sending the Army outside our borders if our security demands it, so in effect the anti-war political movements here in Romania will not be able to speak against this on social media. Absolute madness, but that's the bed the globalists are laying for themselves.
I do not welcome it, as I am on the populists' side.
Decisions like this one are effectively putting our political (non-violent, just to make sure on that) action outside the law, so in effect what do you think the next steps from my side of the isle will be? Acquiescence in practically being silenced out by the current powers that be? I think that that will not be the case.
