Twitter Says It Will Comply With Honest Ads Act To Combat Russia Social Media Meddling (theverge.com) 47
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Twitter today pledged to support a proposed Senate bill that would require technology platforms that sell advertising space to disclose the source of and amount of money paid for political ads. Called the Honest Ads Act, the bipartisan bill was first introduced back in October by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). As part of its transparency efforts, Twitter says it's launched a new platform called the Ads Transparency Center, or ATC, that will "go beyond the requirements of the Honest Ads Act and eventually provide increased transparency to all advertisements on Twitter." Twitter says the platform will increase transparency for political and so-called issue ads, which target specific topics like immigration and gun control, by providing even more information on the origin of an ad that is required by the Honest Ads Act. "We have a dedicated team that is fully resourced to implementing the ATC and are committed to launching it this summer," the company states. "Twitter is moving forward on our commitment to providing transparency for online ads. We believe the Honest Ads Act provides an appropriate framework for such ads and look forward to working with bill sponsors and others to continue to refine and advance this important proposal."
And this will work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we all know that no Russian (or Republican or Democrat, for that matter) would ever LIE about who was behind a political ad....
Note that there is plenty of room for a First Amendment challenge to this as well. It's been established for a long time that ANONYMOUS political speech is protected by the First....
Re: (Score:2)
You lost your own argument. Laws are there to provide a way to force people to take responsibility because there are too many people who won't without society forcing them to.
Sorry, but you lost the argument because you were too stupid to recognize what the argument was even about. Here's a hint:
It's been established for a long time that ANONYMOUS political speech is protected by the First....
The respondent thinks that is an irresponsible "conservative" position. Fascists with a pro-censorship agenda think people are too stupid and vulnerable to be exposed to anything not explicitly approved by the Ministry of Propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people will find new ways to evade existing laws, and thus existing laws will have to be amended or new laws passed - Actual Real Logic
Re: (Score:3)
Some people will find new ways to evade existing laws, and thus existing laws will have to be amended or new laws passed - Actual Real Logic
A friend of mine (Hi Lisa!) almost became a corporate lawyer for just this effect.
She wasn't trying to keep the company "honest" or follow the rules, she wanted to "bend the existing rules to her will" so that the company could do as they wanted while still following the letter of the law.
And I'm sorry, that's exactly right -- if you make a law, then you describe exactly how it works. Tell me what I can and can't do. If you then botch describing things somehow, it's not THEIR problem. And if new ide
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm sorry, that's exactly right -- if you make a law, then you describe exactly how it works. Tell me what I can and can't do. If you then botch describing things somehow, it's not THEIR problem.
That's completely impractical and most legal systems don't work that way.
Take fraud. It often involves elaborate schemes and deceptions. If you want a precise definition then you either have to enumerate every possible malicious action, every possible scam or lie or misdirection, or you have to enumerate all possible acceptable behaviours. I don't think either of those is practical or acceptable.
That's why sensible laws set out principals and then allow courts to apply them to specific cases.
It will absolutely work! (Score:3)
Because we all know that no Russian (or Republican or Democrat, for that matter) would ever LIE about who was behind a political ad....
Note that there is plenty of room for a First Amendment challenge to this as well. It's been established for a long time that ANONYMOUS political speech is protected by the First....
Firstly, it's not only political ads, but "issue" ads. IOW, they have license to determine that *anything* at *any* time is an issue and requires separate scrutiny.
Secondly, they will claim that you must identify yourself and not lie in order to purchase these sorts of ads, and if they suspect that you are lying in any details they can pull your ads. IOW, they can pull ads at any time and require you to send proof of identity; for example: a utility bill for the registered address plus driver's license.
So t
Re: (Score:2)
And the left will point out that they are not the government, are not bound by the first amendment, and they can run their business any way they want to. If you don't like their services, you don't have to advertise on twitter.
What is your alternative? Heavy regulation that forces them to publish any and all political ads? Or just any ads that someone can afford?
And does this extend to other private entities, like TV stations or magazines or billboard owners? What about your house, will people have to right to use your exterior walls to project advertising messages on?
I'm not trying to imply that the situation is black and white. Lots of private property is regulated, such as vehicles and radio transmitters. What I'm asking is wh
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the text of the bill https://www.congress.gov/115/b... [congress.gov]. Talk about propaganda the bill is just chock a block full of it (that just had to fill it full of Russia propaganda, lame, really lame).
Even the title is bull puckey, the ads don't have to be honest in the slightest, it just has to be stated somewhere in it, that is was a paid political advertisement. Although I find the description of a paid ad as a qualified ad to be some what disturbing.
Of course paid political commentators, corporate stink
"Combat Russia" (Score:3)
If they intend to be truly transparent (doubt it), wouldn't' it be funny if it becomes apparent that the most advertising/content 'meddling' was something other than the evil Russians, and could reveal more than intended?
Wouldn't be the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
The 100K worth of Russian ads supposedly decided a multi-billion dollar election? Maybe Clinton's problem was Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Any real American patriot would be outraged by the thought of another state interfering secretly is US elections.
I take it for granted that all sorts of actors, foreign and domestic, will try to "influence" our elections.
American voters are expected to evaluate what they see and hear, and decide what to give credence to, and importance to, themselves.
(Yes, that's scary, blah blah. It's the worst form of government, except for all the others.)
It's the whole basis of democracy in the first place. If we're going to have gatekeepers decide what we can see and hear, and what we're allowed to think about it, then we may
Re: (Score:2)
but.. but.. tell me it isnt so!
Surely, as we were assured to strongly, because those contributions were NEVER political in nature, then they must be flowing as fast as always.
Right?
https://labor.ny.gov/app/warn/details.asp?id=5801
(TL;DR, thats a none news, official source documenting the layoff of 22 workers at the Clinton foundation because they shut down their global initiative project.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the beauty of social media. Unlike the election campaigning that the candidates were legally allowed to do, it's unregulated.
That election was also a time when people were turning away from traditional media and were very much in the post-truth all-politicians-lie-all-the-time frame of mind. They were looking to social media, people who they thought were real and like them.
That meant that social media was incredibly powerful. Memes were incredibly powerful. And they could say anything, pretend to be
...as opposed to not complying? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ship has sailed. Everybody's a felon.
Once you accept it, your free again. Laws, schmaws.
This is dumb (Score:1)
I dont understand what you Americans want? Thermonuclear exchange with Russia? You have allowed your leaders to racially divide your country by using immigration reform as a political foot ball for DECADES .....the left wanted votes....the right wanted cheap labor......you have totally screwed the vast middle of the country...you told the brown people they are oppressed while allowing them to stream across the border and told the white people not to complain about it cause they have privilege and then you
Re: (Score:1)
No, we don't want that
>You have allowed your leaders to racially divide your country by using immigration reform as a political foot ball for DECADES
We have a public discourse on controversial topics - as a people we are ashamed of racism but old habits die hard. We have come a long way and have a long way to go.
>the left wanted votes....the right wanted cheap labor......
All politicians want votes. If by "The Right" you mean politicians that serve b
Question ? (Score:2)
Who tracks the source of funds for super PAC's.
What is to stop a foreign entity from incorporating and then donating to or utilizing a Super PAC as a front ?
Hide source (Score:2)