Some ads purchased by third parties are not going to be able to be categorized as for a particular candidate. The message may attack a candidate instead of support any particular one. Or it may be helpful to several candidates.
Trying to coral and categorize and tabulate Free Speech is a problematic process.
Any effort to destroy the conveyors of the current onslaught of the current shithole of social media needs to be encouraged.
For a company whose entire business model is based on the monitization of data, this effort isn't just embarrassing and pathetic, it reeks of obstruction.
@2 well put. yeah there are broader attacks that could be made on the mediums that have fouled up our epistemology, but like you say any knocks are good knocks currently

Some ad messages attack or support multiple candidates.
Must Facebook prorate those ads?
Using whose formulae?
An ad may advance or attack a policy position held by many candidates, while not attacking or supporting any particular candidate.
Who decides if the message is relevant to what particular candidates?

When Russia ran proBLM ads were they attacking Trump?
Or supporting Hillary?
Or attacking Hillary by advancing a position she actually held, knowing that that position would be unpopular and help Trump?

It is very complex.

But the better question is why bother?

Where would the proBLT type ad show up in Facebooks spreadsheet they gave the city?
How the Hell, indeed.
We see your point.
It is so simple an idiot could do it,
but you have no idea in hell how it could be done.
Not knowing anything about that spreadsheet, but having worked with various forms of reporting, one can easily report these things if you can design your report around the data. From what I know of this issue, they can could have easily had columns that listed ads for or against individual candidates in individual columns and also have columns reporting "issue" ads that attacked or supported multiple candidates.

While I recognize that dark money groups work hard to hide how they raise and spend money, Facebook even botched what should be the easy ones, by not matching what candidates who reported their own expenditures. If they were doing their jobs, they should have been reasonably close to what the candidates reported spending on their own ads that clearly identify them as the source. Facebook isn't even trying to comply.
@13. That’s how you win a debate. Give up because your idea is indefensible and make fun of how the other person talks.

Unearned Leftist intellectual superiority on full display.
@16. No. Just enjoying you squirm and shift focus over looking stupid when a simple follow up question left you completely baffled about what it is you think you think.

Carry on.
oh gee, our ears are burning.
why do you suppose they keep banning us?
Fb's so fucking rich, they can just keep throwing lawyers at this problem, and stall it/fling bs till the first Wednesday following the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in November. It's quite Profitable to do so!

Buying Elections, however, has become de rigueur in America these days. Hell, The Kochs (Go Klean Koal!) are gonna spend $400 fucking MILLION on the midterms. That's an awful lot of Free Speech right there. Don'tchya wish YOU were rich?

Meanwhile, wholly-corporate-owned mass media (and Fb) are laughing all the way to the Bank. Ready for the next Mein Trumpfy?
What's the argument here, that it's impossible to categorize ads, so TV stations can't possibly follow the law like they're already following it?
Is an ad for Planned Parenthood political?
If so, who does it support?
Is an ad attacking Planned Parenthood political?
If so, who does it support?
Is an ad for the coal industry political?
If so, who does it support?
Is an ad attacking the coal industry political?
If so, who does it support?
What about when The Stranger does a fluff piece supporting it's pet candidate?
Is free media an ad?
Do the voters have a right to know when Seattle's Only Newspaper is giving space to a candidate, or doing a hatchet job on a candidate?
@20, @24:

The Stranger’s post has a link to Seattle’s law. How about you quote from the section(s) you don’t like, and tell us why you believe Facebook would have a problem complying?

Oh, right, that would be work, not just spitballing smug comments.
you seem a little buttsore.
have you tried Desitin?
@26: Thank you (that’s the royal “you”, of course!) for demonstrating my point nicely.

(Do you know why blip’s characterization of you @5 still makes a sizzling sound? Because it still burns.)

Carry on.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.