[HN Gopher] Google, Meta and Microsoft to stop showing political...
___________________________________________________________________
Google, Meta and Microsoft to stop showing political ads in the EU
Author : martinohansen
Score : 174 points
Date : 2025-10-10 18:25 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu)
| tdb7893 wrote:
| Ignoring political implications here and just on a personal level
| I wish political ads were banned. Quite possibly my least
| favorite type of ad to see and I've never felt meaningfully
| informed by them (generally quite the opposite).
| fsflover wrote:
| I would go even further: banning all ads,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
| dangus wrote:
| Sounds like a good way to trap everyone with incumbent
| corporations.
|
| No quitting your corporate job to start your own business,
| you're not allowed to advertise.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| You are conflating slapping ads in people's faces with
| making your business listed on the white/yellow/whatever
| pages and allowing people to find you without being a jerk.
| esafak wrote:
| That directory for tech would be like ProductHunt. Do you
| like it?
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| The yellow pages are ads, that's why for a while it was
| really hard to stop getting the phone company to stop
| leaving it as trash on your doorstep.
| guiambros wrote:
| Yellow pages, really? Like, let's ban ads and brig back
| yellow pages", and everything will be solved?
|
| And, if you were not aware, how do you think Yellow Pages
| made money? [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages
| gus_massa wrote:
| Not that I think it's a good idea, but ...
|
| You go to Google, type "refrigerator" and you get two
| buttons
|
| * Please show me only adds, sorted by how much they paid
| to Larry and Sergey
|
| * Please show me only somewhat organic results, sorted by
| relevance or whatever, and discount me $1 to pay for the
| servers and crawers.
| simion314 wrote:
| There could be an index where you list your
| product/service, so people can find your stuff when they
| need it. But yeah will be harder to manipulate people to
| buy your miracle supplement or other garbage that is 99% of
| the current ads I see. I do not watch Tv, use ad blockers
| so after years of not watching TV I watched a bit recently
| and most ads are supplements/"naturists medicine" and for
| some reasons on youtube without the ad blocker they always
| show me the same ad over and over again(it is funny Google
| is trying to sell me the product from the company I work
| for, and somehow showing me same ad each day would convince
| someone to eventually try something they are not interested
| in)
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > showing me same ad each day would convince someone to
| eventually try something they are not interested in
|
| * not interested in right now.
|
| Showing the same ad to the same person (or cohort of
| people) works. Eventually, someone in the cohort may be
| interested in that product/service at some point in their
| lfie and they are more likely to pick a brand they are
| familiar with. They are now familiar with that brand
| after having seen it everywhere all over their internet
| browsing, sometimes for months or years at a time.
| porridgeraisin wrote:
| Yeah. Don't want that. Of course it works, but so does
| drugging people. Doesn't mean it needs to be allowed.
|
| When I want it, ill initiate a fresh search and find
| whatever I find, at that time. Don't want things leeching
| into my subconscious just because you want it to be your
| brand that I use later.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >so people can find your stuff when they need it
|
| And how do are people informed about new products they
| may need or changes to existing products that they now
| may need? What about reminding people about things they
| needed, but they forgot about? There needs to be someway
| for companies to reach consumers that isn't initiated by
| the consumer.
| fph wrote:
| > There could be an index where you list your
| product/service, so people can find your stuff when they
| need it.
|
| There is already one, it's called a search engine.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| That'd be great. But how would you define what's advertising
| and what's not?
|
| 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?
| Certhas wrote:
| We have successfully banned Cigarette ads. Not saying there
| aren't things to sort out, and lines to be drawn, but it's
| by no means impossible.
| jacobgkau wrote:
| We've successfully banned cigarette ads from TV and
| radio. We haven't banned them from the wall at gas
| stations. They're also not banned on the internet,
| legally.
|
| Do you want to ban advertising, or ban TV and radio
| advertising?
| xnorswap wrote:
| Your jurisdiction might not have, mine has, for almost 30
| years now.
|
| They're sold under the counter (literally) / behind
| shutters, in plain packaging.
|
| They certainly are not advertised on posters.
| noir_lord wrote:
| In the UK they are sold behind blank displays and the
| packaging is generic as well.
|
| Sure it's Unrelated but smoking is now 1 in 8 adults and
| dropping.
|
| You can ban this type of advertising if you enforce it.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Every time I'm back in the UK I'm a bit shocked at how
| many people seem to smoke and vape compared to other
| countries. Including many of my friends. There's still a
| long way to go!
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > But how would you define what's advertising and what's
| not?
|
| The same way we define what is and isn't political
| advertising? Or tobacco advertising, alcohol advertising
| etc.
|
| > But, is the SEO I do advertising?
|
| No, it's SEO.
|
| > What about when I share my work to my socials, is that
| advertising? Post a reel
|
| No, this is just sharing your work.
|
| > Likewise with product placement in films, influencer
| marketing, etc.
|
| Is it really complicated though? We already regulate what
| can and can't be said in all these forms of advertising.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Sure, but in reality those reuglations either aren't
| equally enforced, or companies have always found ways
| around it. I could even argue that SEO should be
| considered a form of advertising as the intent of SEO is
| at the end of the day consumer manipulation.
|
| Even with the tobacco advertising ban, tobacco use in
| movies is still a problem and even if not one specific
| product, it still encourages smoking and has a real world
| effect (and this applies to vaping now as well).
|
| Hell, even product placement and merchandising in stores
| could be advertising. It does influence consumer behavior
| afterall.
|
| I'm all for getting rid of ads but it the regulation has
| to have teeth, and be very well defined.
| fph wrote:
| It seems quite simple to me. Are you _paying_ for that?
| Or providing any benefit equivalent to a payment? Then it
| 's an ad.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Also things like Superbowl advertising that some people
| actually want to see.
|
| But to enumerate some things distinguishing those from more
| offensive ads:
|
| * You put effort into making that content engaging and
| interesting for the audience
|
| * The advertising is at least vaguely relevant to the
| content around it.
|
| * Someone can _opt out_ of seeing your social media posts,
| or watching an influencer, or watching the Superbowl.
| People are annoyed when this is violated, e.g. by
| coordinated campaigns across many influencers.
|
| * These ads aren't as violently intrusive, with massive
| volume and color changes or full screen popups.
|
| * These ads are (perceived as) more privacy-respecting than
| say, Google ads.
|
| * These ads don't displace better content like a billboard
| does.
|
| In short, they're a more respectful transaction that people
| have control over.
| baby wrote:
| IMO a bad idea, ads help with discoverability and is one of
| the most effective mechanism for growth. This includes for
| small and big businesses.
|
| 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.)
| walkabout wrote:
| > what ads format should be banned
|
| Practically all of them unless I've _asked_ to receive
| them.
|
| I'd absolutely sign up to receive info about new products
| from certain industry groups, niche product promoters, some
| stores, et c.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Please don't shill someone's blog here. This kind of "native
| advertising" is not appreciated. If you have a point, make
| it. Don't just use it as an opportunity to astroturf a blog.
| cj wrote:
| > Campaigners say the law will cause a harmful loss of
| information
|
| 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.
| floxy wrote:
| >distort the narrative
|
| Whatever would we do if we didn't have the
| corporate/billionaire narrative to guide our lives!
| jopsen wrote:
| I don't think the political ads are like in the US.
|
| 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.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| The amount of money in US politics and elections in
| particular is staggering when you think about it. In 15
| weeks Kamala Harris' campaign spent $1.5 billion. That's
| just insane. Especially when you find out that a lot of
| that spend goes through "media consultancies" and PR
| firms...run by former DNC staffers. And the same is true
| for the RNC. The two parties are basically a giant
| revolving door and network of jobs with access to this
| enormous slush fund.
| docdeek wrote:
| Here in France the presidential candidates who make it to
| the second round are limited to spending EUR22.5 million
| over the course of the entire campaign (first and second
| rounds). About half gets reimbursed from public funds, so
| you 'only' need to raise about EUR10-12 million. Hard
| limits on campaign donations (about EUR4K) mean big money
| impacts the race less, and limits on advertising means
| you don't have to spend it on TV ads or direct mail.
|
| Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing) is
| near unfathomable.
| jopsen wrote:
| > Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing)
| is near unfathomable.
|
| Perhaps we should be delighted in the fact that political
| ads can win an election.
|
| I have a hard time seeing other positive outcomes :)
| dmurray wrote:
| It does seem like a lot of money, but distributed across
| all Americans it's not that insane. Americans spend
| approximately the same on election ads as on chewing gum.
|
| Here's a source, but h/t James Gleick for the comparison:
| https://www.statista.com/topics/1841/chewing-gum/
| lovich wrote:
| Your post sounds conspiratorial but there are basic
| economic reasons why those revolving doors seem to exist.
|
| Every campaign is going to need largely the same set of
| skill sets in their campaign staff. Spinning up these
| groups and also going through the startup time of any new
| team learning to work together costs a lot of time and
| money.
|
| So several of these standard skill sets, like data
| science, marketing, etc have been spun out into companies
| or consulting firms that are treated like a pool of
| available resources by campaigns based on their party.
|
| It's not treated as a slush fund and there's usually a
| handful of competitors in your parties pool but you do
| end up working with a lot of the same faces at different
| clients/campaigns if you work at one of the servicing
| companies.
|
| I worked at one of them once and I recall realizing that
| fact when I asked why a coworkers email had numeral in
| his name when he had a relatively uncommon first and last
| name
| beloch wrote:
| The first thing an American politician does after winning
| an election is start fundraising for their next election.
| Governing would be an afterthought were it not so helpful
| in raising money.
| ruszki wrote:
| Heavily depends on the country: Hungary. The government
| routinely the largest spender in Europe for online
| advertisement.
|
| Btw, they just started categorise their online ads as non
| political through proxy companies. And they just jump to a
| new company when one becomes blocked.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent
| is bad. /s
|
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| Also that they have to actually be your positions and you
| can't just promise one thing and do a completely different
| thing.
| patrickmay wrote:
| Holding politicians legally accountable for their
| campaign promises will never happen, but I love the idea.
| dylan604 wrote:
| My favorite reform idea is to make politicians wear
| NASCAR style suits with all of their sponsor's logos
| attached
| dylan604 wrote:
| Then they'd all say the same thing with "my positions
| will be those of whoever writes the largest check"
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| They think their opponent is bad because their opponent is
| not themself. That's not what the ads typically say though.
| Instead, they try to mislead uninformed voters into
| thinking the opponent is bad in the quickest way possible
| instead of explaining why the opponent is actually bad,
| which doesn't fit in a banner.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| The worst form of physical ads in Germany. A slogan or a face
| and the party name printed on paper and hung up on the streets
| everywhere. So wasteful.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Sounds like a pretty standard election sign/billboard design
| in any country.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > generally quite the opposite
|
| Very much this. These ads make me very much not want to vote
| for the candidate which is the opposite of what they wanted.
| immibis wrote:
| The advertising industry keeps repeatedly finding that no
| matter how much you think an ad turned you off a product,
| you're still more likely to buy that product after seeing the
| ad, and the more times you see the ad, the more likely you
| are to buy it. No matter how the ad made you feel.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's amazing how an industry can conduct research that
| provides them with the exact answer they want
| austin-cheney wrote:
| Yeah, political ads are so toxic but worse its just lazy money.
| I am really tired of super PACs buying my politicians with this
| garbage. I would rather my politicians come down to the
| district here and hold rallies or town halls where they can lie
| to us in person.
|
| 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.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Super PACs are the dumbest of dumb money, and I'm surprised
| this forum isn't solely about extracting money from them
|
| 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
| tehjoker wrote:
| Commercial ads are also designed to manipulate you emotionally
| or otherwise present you with information that induces a desire
| to buy what you otherwise didn't need.
| immibis wrote:
| At least the worst thing that comes out of that is losing
| money. With political ads, you lose a country.
| MattDaEskimo wrote:
| Depends on your definition of "political ads".
|
| 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.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Banning political ads would completely negate what a democratic
| free society is.
| alex1138 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21407531
| zb3 wrote:
| Good, political ads are total crap, no matter what party they're
| for.
| t43562 wrote:
| Excellent! People with money won't be able to use those platforms
| to buy votes.
| morkalork wrote:
| Will this be the same situation as the news ban on Facebook where
| all the legitimate ads disappear and all that remains are the
| deceptive propaganda paid for by shell companies?
| NoahZuniga wrote:
| Now you can't select the "This is a political add, extra
| transparency" button but you might still want to buy ads, so
| less transparency might be the result.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I don't know how useful or relevant is this. The problem is
| actually influencers paid by political actors to push an agenda.
|
| 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.
| troupo wrote:
| The problem is defining what is political ads. I haven't read the
| regulation yet (full text here: https://eur-
| lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng) so I'm just speculating.
|
| 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
| parasti wrote:
| As a EU citizen, I don't care? People are not swayed by political
| ads. They're swayed by influencers who push political agendas
| covertly.
| sublimefire wrote:
| I would think this is naive to imagine that targeted ads do not
| have influence when used in large numbers. There is a reason
| why this market exists.
|
| I am happy this law has an effect and potentially opens the
| doors to other players.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| I think this comes from a us perspective in most of Europe
| political ads consist of a portrait image of the politician
| and a slogan that gets penetrated to death. We don't have
| attack ads here most of the time we don't even have ads that
| transport a message besides this is Dude A from Party A.
| ripped_britches wrote:
| Then why are they paying for them? They can literally see the
| exact CPC and CPA / CPM ratios that justify their spending
| Dr_Incelheimer wrote:
| That's because you are a HN user, which selects for above
| average intelligence people (yes, even the webdevs). You are
| not the type of person who sways election results. Ads work.
| You don't need carefully crafted subliminal messages, you could
| write "vote for me" everywhere and it would have a noticeable
| effect on the election results
| lm28469 wrote:
| > That's because you are a HN user, which selects for above
| average intelligence people
|
| This forum became a parody of itself
| llbbdd wrote:
| Up to and including the snark at web devs. Every engineer
| I've met who thinks the web is somehow an easier form of
| software engineering couldn't write software worth a damn
| in general, let alone make a website. Universally incurious
| and dumb.
| vovavili wrote:
| You may not like the way he put it, but he is correct.
| baby wrote:
| > People are not swayed by political ads
|
| sure
| IshKebab wrote:
| Right? Who is that naive?
| shevy-java wrote:
| Ads influence people a lot. In particular the elderly
| generation.
| immibis wrote:
| And the younger generation are influenced by influencers,
| which are also ads.
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| My cousin says there should be a maximum voting age. She says
| if people can't vote for the first 18 years of their life,
| why should they be able to vote for the last 18 years (e.g.
| if retired or older than 65)?
|
| 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.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| What is your general opinion on the wisdom and decision-
| making of politicians and heads of state that are above the
| age of 80?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| As a world citizen, you're projecting. Most people are indeed
| swayed by political ads, as the numbers clearly bear out.
| Spivak wrote:
| I can actually give a very specific real life example of
| political ads working because I have a friend who was part of
| the campaign. In Ohio there was a constitutional amendment on
| the ballot to legalize abortion. The orgs that spent millions
| of dollars getting it on the ballot were constantly polling to
| figure where they stand in terms of it passing. As a just in
| case they made a "break glass" ad campaign which talked about a
| 10 year old rape victim that had to be driven across state
| lines to get an abortion. At the 11th hour a few days before
| the vote they realized it wasn't going to pass. So they took
| that ad and blasted it across the state, you legitimately
| couldn't watch TV for more than 30 minutes and not see it at
| least twice. It covered every streaming service, youtube,
| facebook ads, tv. The polls went from 48-49% to almost 60% in
| favor and it passed.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Political ads definitely do sway people. Especially the shit-
| flinging ads are effective.
|
| 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.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| You are not immune to propaganda
| sumedh wrote:
| > People are not swayed by political ads.
|
| That just means you are getting swayed, you just dont know it.
| touwer wrote:
| Influencers are a big problem indeed. The rules should be
| tightened quickly. Ads do work too, I'm afraid, so this is good
| paganel wrote:
| > Among the requirements, the law demands that platforms provide
| information on what election, referendum or legislative process
| the ad is linked to, how much it cost and details on any
| targeting techniques used.
|
| What a shit-show the EU has become, in fact it was always been
| like this, as far as I can tell. This law is, obviously,
| targeting what the neo-liberal powers that be are calling
| "populists" (at best) and/or "Russia's agents" (at worst, and the
| most recent), while doing nothing against the constant stream of
| propaganda coming from said neo-liberals ghouls, who also happen
| to hold the reins of power and to put forward these idiotic so-
| called "laws".
| sublimefire wrote:
| How is this bad? I welcome the decision and the outcome. It is
| beyond crazy what some groups are doing with the misinformation
| and outright lies on the platforms. Ad companies just want to
| rake the money with the least effort. They have shown over the
| years they are not willing to improve the outcomes.
| paganel wrote:
| > How is this bad? I welcome the decision and the outcome.
|
| 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.
| shevy-java wrote:
| Fewer ads is always great.
|
| Not everyone wants to be molested by ads. I for instance
| don't. I think ads should be forbidden.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| That sounds like a threat of violence.
| baby wrote:
| Maybe make a case for it if you think you have such good
| arguments
| paganel wrote:
| I get EU (political, just to be sure) propaganda ads on my
| Facebook feed almost each and every day, no matter if we're
| outside the election period or not, while from now on
| political movements will have to abide by these so called
| rules:
|
| > 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.
| continuational wrote:
| By requiring transparency? What's the actual problem here?
| ripped_britches wrote:
| I am a big fan of commercial advertising. I think it drives our
| global economy. However I think political and medical advertising
| need to be tightly regulated.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > I think it drives our global economy.
|
| It does, but in the same way that gambling drives the Macau
| economy.
| pizzathyme wrote:
| Ads get a bad wrap, but no one wants a bad ad. The user
| wishes they didn't have to see it. The platform wishes they
| hadn't shown it to you. The advertiser/company wishes they
| hadn't paid to show it to you.
|
| 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
| Spivak wrote:
| So I think we've over-grouped ads into too broad a category
| to be useful. Brand sponsorships (i.e. The Doritos-Jeep-
| AT&T Halftime Show) and other 'brand awareness' are clearly
| bad ads by your own metric, they do nothing to inform. Same
| with "entertainment ads" which are just 30 second comedy
| bits attached to a brand.
|
| But when people think of ads, radio promos, podcast
| interruptions, tv commercials, posters in shops, billboards
| online banner ads, they're almost exclusively this kind of
| bad ad. And when people talk about banning advertising
| they're talking about these and likely very little else.
| shevy-java wrote:
| I think advertising should be eliminated. It just wastes
| people's time.
| folgoris wrote:
| That would be ideal, but how do you define advertising? It
| could be a sign spray-painted with "good stuff only here".
| seydor wrote:
| it's ironic that the european commission and the european
| parliament are the top 2 spenders on facebook ads in most EU
| countries. Meta is basically cutting off a major channel that the
| EU uses to promote itself.
|
| 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
| Bengalilol wrote:
| Good. But how about political content that gets served to their
| users?
| seydor wrote:
| we ban the bad content and keep the good content, easy peasy
| way to dictatorship
| paxys wrote:
| > "Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates will lose an
| affordable channel to reach voters, while large, well-followed
| accounts remain largely unaffected,"
|
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| and how does a sole candidate for mayor begin this 'grassroots
| campaign'. If you seriously start knocking on people's doors,
| you re most likely to end up dead or in prison in this day and
| age
| Bjartr wrote:
| What makes that more true today than, say, 40 years ago?
| seydor wrote:
| online communication, city densities, very fast movement of
| people, immigration, inexistence of third spaces,
| helicopter parenting and so many other things
| baud147258 wrote:
| if you're a sole, unknown candidate, how do you expect to be
| elected?
|
| 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).
| greggsy wrote:
| Don't be ridiculous. Canvassing is not a dangerous activity.
| jopsen wrote:
| > If you seriously start knocking on people's doors, you re
| most likely to end up dead or in prison in this day and age.
|
| 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 :)
| paxys wrote:
| If you are too scared to step out of your house and meet your
| neighbors because you think your city is a warzone then you
| are not the kind who should be running for office anyways.
| btown wrote:
| While I'm sympathetic to the sentiment here, it can be overly
| simplistic in some common cases. For instance, a newcomer might
| benefit disproportionately from the first X units of ad
| spending to "get their name out," relative to an incumbent or
| someone with a famous name spending the exact same price on the
| same X units, whose incremental effect might be less.
|
| 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_.
| baby wrote:
| It is messed up in the US that a political party basically wins
| because they spend more money in ads and utilize ads more
| intelligently.
|
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| Democrats outspent Trump in 2020, 2024 and 2016
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/nx-s1-5173712/2024-election-a...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/21/us/elections/...
| baby wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 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
| mrtesthah wrote:
| Trump received the equivalent of two billion dollars in free
| media coverage in 2016.
|
| 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...
| nine_zeros wrote:
| Would an American using a VPN into EU also be saved from the
| garbage toxic political ads? Or are we condemned to forever
| seeing this garbage?
| shevy-java wrote:
| Good. The fewer ads in general, the better. And these Trump-
| corporations already have WAY too much influence.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Were they Biden-corporations just a couple short years ago?
| psb wrote:
| > Polish hard-right member of the European Parliament Piotr
| Muller said the rules are an example of over-regulation gone wild
|
| This is almost an endorsement of the rules to me.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| He's just saying that so you think it's a bad idea. In fact the
| far right is supported by armies of Russian propaganda, that
| these companies are doing nothing to stop.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| Some US billionaires/soon trillionaires have already announced
| their intention to "help" the EU and UK far-right to win
| elections, to liberate them from democracy I suppose:
|
| 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.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Don't want legitimate ads competing with the armies of Russian
| bots posting propaganda 24/7.
| oytis wrote:
| Sounds good to me
| ajrouvoet wrote:
| Dutch newspaper Trouw also reported that their ad was rejected
| multiple times by Meta. After inquiry into this they found it was
| because it was about sustainability and hence considered "a
| political ad".
|
| (Paywalled) Source: https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-
| media/advertenties-over-armoede...
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Unpaywalled link: https://archive.is/VBqs7
|
| This reeks of malicious compliance to me.
| h1fra wrote:
| Good, political advertising is pay to win and should be banned
| across the world
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| I agree. But the most toxic extreme things get "engagement" so
| they will be promoted by the algorithm.
|
| So does that help?
| j45 wrote:
| With a clear, agreed upon exact definition of political between
| all 3 companies?
|
| I wonder if this has to do with Chat Control, or something else?
| samrus wrote:
| The benefit grabbing attention using ads feels like something
| that only exists in relative measure. So if everyone is boosting
| themselves on tour timeline, its kinda like no one is. If none of
| them boost themselves, then they dont lose out against each other
|
| 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)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-10 23:01 UTC)