
Google halts political ads in Singapore as election looms: documents - doppp
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-singapore-election/google-halts-political-ads-in-singapore-as-election-looms-documents-idUSKBN1Y80JM
======
knzhou
In these comments, and in the press at large, we have another great display of
"damned if you do, damned if you don't".

It is constantly argued that Facebook, Google, etc. must stop political ads in
America, because allowing ads benefits the party currently in power.

But now all the comments argue that Google must not stop political ads in
Singapore, because forbidding ads benefits the party currently in power.

I have not the slightest doubt that the same amount of outrage would occur if
Google had taken the exact opposite action: for literally any action you can
construct a narrative for why it benefits the "wrong" people. It feels like
some people won't be happy until Google is literally appointing the
politicians they like.

~~~
buboard
> "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

It's a false dilemma. There's a lesser evil of the two, that the west chose
300 years ago - free speech. We are now just rediscovering that wheel the hard
way.

~~~
baq
Effective uncontrolled free speech is basically mind control, which KGB
understood ages ago. CIA probably did, too, but the countries they wanted to
influence in that way were either allies (not that it matters that much) or
didn’t have free speech.

~~~
buboard
yeah but effective controlled speech is worse

------
mc32
I’m curious about the outcome of this prelude to the US elections and whether
problems will crop up.

It seems banning political ads on its properties will have a disproportionate
effect on small parties and favor incumbents.

~~~
penagwin
It could have the opposite affect too though, since google ads are essentially
a bidding war, so if you have lots of money you could theoretically just out
bid all your opponents (then it's down to who has more money).

~~~
darkwizard42
This is exactly what happens. Since a larger company can just bury a message
by having better ad targeting, spend more on the big demos, overload and bid
up keywords and generally squeeze any smaller message out.

------
majos
Does anybody have numbers for how much revenue companies like Facebook,
Google, and Twitter even earn from political ads? At this point it is hard for
me to imagine that revenue is worth the public backlash, regardless of my
opinion on whether that backlash is justified.

~~~
radicaldreamer
It’s not about revenue, it’s about being indispensable to politicians and
using that as leverage to prevent regulatory actions.

~~~
throwaway1777
Not really, for instance Facebook is constantly arguing that they want to be
regulated in the domain of political ads.

------
thanatropism
Maybe time is of the essence.

Someone should split the Twitter/Facebook difference and allow political ads
_until 90 days prior to the election_. Information should spread freely but
people should have the time to parse it too. If Boris' Brexit Bus (with
misinformation about the consequences of Brexit for the NHS) had been allowed
to hang around but banned near polling time, there would be time to fact check
it or even think about it calmly.

------
throwGuardian
Can you imagine a Russian search engine having 90%+ market share in the U.S.,
making decisions on whether or not political ads should be allowed on it's US
properties?

This is Google, an American company with clear political bent, indulging in
election interference in a foreign country. Just defer to local laws Google,
you are NOT a neutral third party, and definitely NOT local.

~~~
qtplatypus
They are defering to local laws. The laws say you can't advertise unless you
conform to these requirements; google hasn't set up there systems to conform
to those requirements so they can't publish political ads.

------
daenz
>The office administrating Singapore’s new fake news law, called the
Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)

Anyone else get the sense that these new laws and policies get "beta tested"
in other countries first?

------
SlowRobotAhead
I have been to SG but know nothing of their politics.

The skeptic in me wonders if a party that was likely to come to power that
Google did or did not agree with if that would change wether and when they
decided to ban political ads.

------
datashow
One thing people need to understand is that halting political ads to all
political parties is not political neutral, it is siding with the
establishment, the party in power.

~~~
TheFiend7
Wouldn't it be the opposite? Theoretically doesn't the party in power usually
have access to more resources (whether directly or indirectly through
connections etc) than the opposing party? And therefore would imply that the
party in power would be able to out-perform in both quantity and quality in
ads generally speaking than opposing parties?

I'm just trying to understand how it actually helps the party in power by not
allowing ads to run. Because I see the opposite situation. Honestly it seems
to me both situations the sitting party has the most power, but simply due to
the fact that they're the party in power.

~~~
datashow
The reason is simple. The establishment has nothing to gain but everything to
lose.

Let's say the maximum reach/exposure to voters is 100% in their country. The
political establishment of many decades already have this number close to
100%, but the opposition may only have 5%. You see, the opposition has
potential to gain a lot from ads, but not the establishment.

Also in a rich society like Singapore, grassroots can make huge contribution
to the opposition party if their voice get heard and spread. But the
establishment does not need this.

~~~
TheFiend7
So if the opposition only has 5% support, while the establishment has close to
95% support (for the sake of the example).

I'd argue the opposing party 5% support would likely have a matching resource
pool of their size. Meaning the establishment might run 95% of all ads as ads
supporting the establishment and only 5% of ads would support the opposing
party. So I struggle to see how that would help the opposing party?

Obviously, it isn't that cut and dry, but America is a good example actually.
Because they have 2 major parties and several third parties. But those third
parties never make any meaningful growth even after running ads because they
only represent >5% of the available political parties.

~~~
datashow
By running ads, the opposition can gain more support, but the establishment
can't. How is this hard to understand?

~~~
TheFiend7
Yeah I'm saying that doesn't make any sense and is untrue.

So agree to disagree then.

------
40acres
Generally think political ads on these platforms is an overblown issue, but
one that it would be smart for these companies to nip in the bud.

Most people still get their news through traditional channels, I genuinely
feel that a lot of the ink spilled by media companies on tech is a backlash to
the loss of ad revenue. That being said the scrutiny is required.

------
BubRoss
The party in power only allows political ads on the TV station they control
for a few weeks before the election. This makes me think that they are trying
to control alternate routes of information as well.

------
Pimpus
People are forgetting something. We know Google is far left and wishes to
impose their leftist agenda on the world at large [0].

All of their shenanigans including censorship of search, censorship on
Youtube, and now this, would make this agenda and intent abundantly clear,
even if they weren't exposed on tape admitting to it.

This particular action may be aimed towards Singapore, but I am 100% confident
that this is a test run for a similar action in the United States.

[0]: [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-
googl...](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-
leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/)

